Gay Beehive Delivers Prepared Speech in F&T Meeting - Ends as Expected

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's an important point, Jeanne.  She was obviously sharing something that was deeply important and spiritual to her.  The message she got was:  We don't want to hear it!  And that same message was given to any other LGBT persons in the congregation.  The message sent was:  "We don't want to hear that God loves you as you are and that you have hopes and dreams.  Keep those things to yourself."

Actually, what happened was she publicly advocated against current church policy, whatever you may think of that. It's a pretty simple equation...so simple that an apostle (Ballard?) even spelled it out. You can support gay marriage as long as you aren't out on social media advocating for it, etc. There is nothing unusual about this whatsoever other than it is about gays. 

So we can do the usual, target one church guy and pillory him and attempt to smear the entire body of the church by proxy, or we can realize this one one incident and one church guy and discuss how it could be better handled. Because we all know one thing....in our current politically charged environment, whenever there is an open mike, it will be used. 

[Rain]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then let the parents be accountable...she was the one at the pulpit...and an automatic judgement took place. 

 

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do we know this was written and started with an adult encouraging her to do this?

Maybe it was something she wanted to do, wrote herself, and shared it beforehand with whoever decided to tape it.

Did she know it was being taped, does anyone know?

Also, no one would have known ahead of time that she wouldn't be allowed to finish or how it would be handled...

We don't know (as to my knowledge) which was why I gave another possibility of what it could be - actually the one you suggested was what I was thinking the possibility could be though I didn't explain that well.  

Don't know if she knew she was being taped, but I would be surprised if she didn't.  Someone most likely knew what she was going to say unless they are in the habit of videoing all the testimonies. 

And considering all of the videos I have seen of airlines etc online then yes, I agree that no would have know how it would be handled, but people rarely start videoing things like this anymore if they are expecting nothing unusual to happen.  I think it would be pretty naive to expect nothing at all.

 

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Four minutes is all it takes to shame...she wasn't up there 2 minutes before she was shut down..Doesn't that speak to you at all?  I don't know what will become of her or what her future brings..I wish her the very best as all of you.  But this day..will be remembered and not forgotten for a lesbian child of God.  Four minutes speaks volumes.

I wish her the very best as well.  I don't feel she was "shut down".  I feel that the leader handled it in the best way he knew handle it.  Doesn't that speak to you at all?   

What would I have liked to see?  The leader getting up with her.  Telling his understanding of Christ's love for her.  Asking questions that could gently bring out a testimony of some of the things she knows that may be more appropriate giving the setting.  Sharing of his love for the girl.  But...he was unfairly put on the spot (as far as I know) and sometimes you can't think quick on your feet.  Perhaps he shared some of that after the video stopped playing.  Perhaps he brought the girl into his office with her family and talked about what happened and she left filled with love.  Without any more context and time we really don't have any idea of what this 4 minutes will mean in her life.

[MorningStar]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I sincerely doubt that a 12 year old girl anticipated being asked to sit down.  How often does that ever happen?  I only remember once in 45 years of sacrament meetings.  Why would she have expected the mic to be turned off in the middle of her testimony?  I also doubt that she considered herself an activist.  She was sharing her beliefs and the truth of her testimony.

Oh, I'm sure the adults who put her up to it (the ones with the camera) warned her that she would be asked to sit down and that she would even be a hero for her actions.  The message is that the church is wrong and that gay marriage is right and good. 

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Here's my perspective on the "God made me this way" arguments-- 

I have a sister who was born with an absolutely nasty temper.  Growing up she would yell and hit and scream and do all sorts of horrible things.  She could say "God made this way, it's how I feel, so I'm going to keep hitting and that's something to celebrate", but I don't think anyone would agree with that statement.  Rather, we (including herself) have tried to teach her control of her emotions and the higher route.  It's been a life long battle, and nearing the age of 30 she still battles her temper regularly- this inclination for sin is part of who she is.  But she should keep trying to overcome this natural-man part of herself, and through doing so she's become a much better person.   Her story of conquering this (or at least trying) is something to be celebrated.

Likewise I could have written an identical paragraph about me and my own inclination to sin (I can be SO prideful).  I could have written it about my friend's tendency towards laziness.  I could have written it about another friend's battle with heterosexual lust and cheating.  

Are you seriously comparing someone being born gay with having a bad temper or having too much pride?  Or having lust and wanting to cheat on a partner?

How about you try to overcome being attracted to the opposite sex?  Could you "control those emotions" and live a celibate life?

Edited June 15, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

She didn't just express that she's gay, but that she hopes to grow up and marry a woman and have children with that woman, which she knows goes against church teachings.  That is not the purpose of testimony meeting. 

Alright... add it to the infinitely long list of things that are said in testimony meeting that don't align with the purpose of testimony meeting (and yet I don't see anyone else getting asked to sit down).

Not long ago, I sat through a man bearing his testimony on the miracle of medicinal marijuana -- and nobody asked him to stop.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Oh, I'm sure the adults who put her up to it (the ones with the camera) warned her that she would be asked to sit down and that she would even be a hero for her actions.  The message is that the church is wrong and that gay marriage is right and good. 

Do you have any evidence to conclude that adults "put her up to it"?  Please share.

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

That was the whole purpose.  It's a publicity stunt.  They knew the bishop would have to ask her to sit down.  The goal was to shame the church on YouTube. 

If it was a publicity stunt, too bad the bishop didn't let her speak and then come up to her, give her a big hug and tell her she will always be welcome in the Mormon Church.  Imagine how much that would have changed the perception people have of the church.

Edited June 15, 2017 by california boy

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Oh, I'm sure the adults who put her up to it (the ones with the camera) warned her that she would be asked to sit down and that she would even be a hero for her actions. 

How can you be sure she was put up to this by adults?  Do you know any background here?

Unless we know more details, this could have been her idea and others found out about her courage and wanted to tape it.

The leaders did not have to react in a way that caused embarrassment or made them look bad.  

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Four minutes is all it takes to shame...she wasn't up there 2 minutes before she was shut down..Doesn't that speak to you at all?  I don't know what will become of her or what her future brings..I wish her the very best as all of you.  But this day..will be remembered and not forgotten for a lesbian child of God.  Four minutes speaks volumes.

Let's be honest. If this was really about concern about shaming that child, the parent would have prevented her from doing it. Just as they would have prevented her from creating any other situation in which she would be harmed. Does that even need to be said? Really?

So for good or bad, the parents were fully on board with putting her up there. I think we can get that out of the way real quick before proceeding to the next high moral ground marker. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, what happened was she publicly advocated against current church policy, whatever you may think of that. It's a pretty simple equation...so simple that an apostle (Ballard?) even spelled it out. You can support gay marriage as long as you aren't out on social media advocating for it, etc. There is nothing unusual about this whatsoever other than it is about gays.  

I think she was sharing her belief, her hopes, her testimony.  I don't think what she did even remotely reaches the level of public advocacy against current church policy.

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

So we can do the usual, target one church guy and pillory him and attempt to smear the entire body of the church by proxy, or we can realize this one one incident and one church guy and discuss how it could be better handled. Because we all know one thing....in our current politically charged environment, whenever there is an open mike, it will be used. 

I agree with this.  There is no reason to target/pillory one church guy.  And this single even certainly doesn't represent the entire church.  It's an isolated incident and should be treated as such.  But, it could be indicative of what is to come and more and more LGBT church members become willing to share their truth.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Oh, I'm sure the adults who put her up to it (the ones with the camera) warned her that she would be asked to sit down and that she would even be a hero for her actions.  The message is that the church is wrong and that gay marriage is right and good. 

The message is, clearly, youth in the Church struggle immensely as they come to terms with their sexual orientation, especially when the youth are gay.  If you think this was not really her views, or that her parents or other adults put her up to it, so be it.  It might be that they helped and encouraged, but that doesnt' take away from what she said, what her message was.  You simply missed the message. 

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Shutting down a child who is trying to express herself on open mic day, defying her expression and for the sake of keeping the meeting to what's appropriate is idiotic and cold.  If you have an issue let her give her piece and address with the family afterward, at the very least.  

Leaders correctly understood that if the members of the ward put a face to the issue it would cause many to question the church's position. The church and its leaders are threatened by real people sharing their real beliefs and experience. It's quite an odd thing when you think about it. Despite many efforts by leaders to script what is and isn't an appropriate testimony F&T is still open for diverse expression. It's just surprising when it actually is diverse.

The church will continue to lose the next generations if they cannot come up with a better way to address these kinds of issues. I don't believe that Millenials and those coming after will put up with that kind of authoritarian censorship. Time will tell.

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think we need to stop talking about people as if they are a sin. SSA is not equivalent to a bad temper and it shouldn't be trivialized as something that can be overcome like a bad hair day, or needs to be. It just is.

I don't know how this is going to turn out. The church is in a very difficult position that I wish hadn't happened.  I don't like the identity politics that has grown up around this and other things but that is no excuse to pile on and make anyone feel that God does not love and approve of them.

An inclination to sin is an inclination to sin.  Doesn't matter if it's any inclination for anger, laziness, pride, being inappropriately attracted to someone.  I'm not confusing someone's inclination to sin, and I think it's horrible when someone else does-- especially when it's themselves doing it.  Such as when a person defines themselves according to their pride, or according to who they are attracted to (defining yourself as "gay" and just that).  A person's sinful inclinations are a *part* of who they are and should in no way be allowed to define the *whole*. 

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Leaders correctly understood that if the members of the ward put a face to the issue it would cause many to question the church's position. The church and its leaders are threatened by real people sharing their real beliefs and experience.

This could be part of the reason behind the November 2015 handbook additions.

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Are you seriously comparing someone being born gay with having a bad temper or having too much pride?  Or having lust and wanting to cheat on a partner?

How about you try to overcome being attracted to the opposite sex?  Could you "control those emotions" and live a celibate life?

Yes.  And I have no doubt that trying to overcome pride or self-centeredness or any other lifelong sin can be just as hard of a battle. 

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Leaders correctly understood that if the members of the ward put a face to the issue it would cause many to question the church's position. The church and its leaders are threatened by real people sharing their real beliefs and experience. It's quite an odd thing when you think about it. Despite many efforts by leaders to script what is and isn't an appropriate testimony F&T is still open for diverse expression. It's just surprising when it actually is diverse.

The church will continue to lose the next generations if they cannot come up with a better way to address these kinds of issues. I don't believe that Millenials and those coming after will put up with that kind of authoritarian censorship. Time will tell.

I agree.  Not only that, but I think the church is on the wrong side of history right now as it relates to how it treats gays.  Fifty years from now, videos like this will only illustrate how certain doctrine  and policies were completely unnecessary.

Ask yourself this:  If Christ was sitting in the room during this meeting, do you really think he would have asked her to sit down?  I think not...he probably would have let her finish her talk and then would have given her a hug and said I love you.  

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

If it was a publicity stunt, too bad the bishop didn't let her speak and then come up to her, give her a big hug and tell her she will always be welcome in the Mormon Church.  Imagine how much that would have changed the perception people have of the church.

SHE is welcome.  So is every other sinner.  Doesn't mean we stand over the pulpit celebrating the desire to sin or looking forward to it.  

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

 SSA is not equivalent to a bad temper and it shouldn't be trivialized as something that can be overcome like a bad hair day, or needs to be. It just is.

Why?
SSA is a mortal weakness, just like tendencies towards other mortal weakness.  Anger, jealousy, cowardice, fear, depression, gluttony, lust etc.
A symptom of a fallen world, and allowed that it can be overcome. There is no definable difference.

[cinepro]

I wish I could have been the guy to stand up and bear testimony after her.  I would have said "So....I'm not gay.  But I do have a story about finding my lost keys last Monday that I'd like to share..."

 

Regarding the appropriateness of the speech, my initial reaction was to wag my finger about how that's not what we do in F&T meeting.  But this was obviously an act of "civil disobedience". 

Not that it was illegal per se, but that that it was an action that was known before to not be "okay" in the context of the culture in which it was delivered, and that there would be some sort of repercussion (in this case, being stopped).  As with civil disobedience in general, it's not just the action that is the message.  It is the reaction (and subsequent publicity) that carries the message. 

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" would not have been as effective if it was instead "Letter from My Home After Being Let Off With a Warning."  Likewise, "Beehive Delivers Gay Confessional To Bored and Hungry Congregation That Doesn't React" wouldn't quite have the same ring to it.

Edited June 15, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
SSA is a mortal weakness, just like tendencies towards other mortal weakness.  Anger, jealousy, cowardice, fear, depression, gluttony, lust etc.
A symptom of a fallen world, and allowed that it can be overcome. There is no definable difference.

Our individual sexual desire is a good part of us, not a bad part of us.  I'd agree we ought to be wise to get a good healthy handle on how we act on it, but I disagree that you know the voice of God on this matter.  Many will continue to err as they presume to speak for God.  No doubt. 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

An inclination to sin is an inclination to sin.  Doesn't matter if it's any inclination for anger, laziness, pride, being inappropriately attracted to someone.  I'm not confusing someone's inclination to sin, and I think it's horrible when someone else does-- especially when it's themselves doing it.  Such as when a person defines themselves according to their pride, or according to who they are attracted to (defining yourself as "gay" and just that).  A person's sinful inclinations are a *part* of who they are and should in no way be allowed to define the *whole*. 

 

My heterosexuality is not a part of me that can be compartmentalized like what mood I am in today. You talk trash about something that is so intrinsic to my being it has shaped my entire life, you are trashing all of me. I often wish that there was some Star Trek holograph where we heterosexuals would have to experience being told that our most primitive feelings and thoughts are "sinful." And that we must be separated from our spouses to be acceptable. I can't even imagine....and isn't that problem with saying things like you have?

The problem is that the Church's most fundamental doctrine revolves around male/female godhood. That is the only place this discussion should be going, not to the spiritual state of individuals. 

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

SHE is welcome.  So is every other sinner.  Doesn't mean we stand over the pulpit celebrating the desire to sin or looking forward to it.  

What in the WORLD gives you the right to call a young teen, a complete stranger,  a sinner??????????

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

being born gay

Horse puckey

[cinepro]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

SHE is welcome.  So is every other sinner.  Doesn't mean we stand over the pulpit celebrating the desire to sin or looking forward to it.  

The point, in case you missed it, is that she was proposing that it isn't a sin.  She wasn't asking to be accepted in spite of her sins.  She was suggesting that the way she feels and identifies, and what she hopes for the future, doesn't make her a "sinner" in the first place, and the Church is wrong for teaching otherwise.

And it isn't even really a problem that she feels that way and the Church leaders feel the other way.  She's not the first person to disagree with LDS leaders. 

The problem is that Church members are being asked to choose one or the other, and in the past they've seemed to predominantly side with the Church leaders on this, but that appears to be changing.  Maybe slowly, but surely.

In the Church, the idea that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is "wrong" is on a collision course with the idea that homosexuality may not be a de facto sin and gay marriage might not be "wrong".  And seeing the Church work it out will be like watching a slow-motion train-wreck for as long as it takes to play out.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

The point, in case you missed it, is that she was proposing that it isn't a sin.  She wasn't asking to be accepted in spite of her sins.  She was suggesting that the way she feels and identifies, and what she hopes for the future, doesn't make her a "sinner" in the first place, and the Church is wrong for teaching otherwise.

And it isn't even really a problem that she feels that way and the Church leaders feel the other way.  She's not the first person to disagree with LDS leaders. 

The problem is that Church members are being asked to choose one or the other, and in the past they've seemed to predominantly side with the Church leaders on this, but that appears to be changing.  Maybe slowly, but surely.

 

Would this process of church members choosing a different path than that of church leaders be called apostasy?