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

[juliann]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I was trying to ge clarification from you for this like that you wrote.  Maybe you can help me understand what you are talking about

 

The way this thread is going my philosophical ramblings would not be on topic, perhaps another thread.

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

Since we are all sinners, and have been told by no less than Uchtdorf to knock off the mote/beam thing, as in STOP IT!, it is a serious enough offense that Jesus saw the need to include that tendency in one of his few recorded parables. In other words, if you want to recognize sins, talk about your own. 

We can do that only if we all have sin and are thus sinners, correct? Jane Doe said "all" sinners are welcome. She was not condemning all people.

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I see parents do this very often during F&T meetings--and many people think it's cute and special -- but it's scripted and not sincere, IMO.  The problem is, the church encourages and inoculates members to "repeate what everyone else said," not just in F&T meetings.  Why do people always play F&T bingo?  Because many members just sound like parrots and repeat exactly what the church wants to hear; thus, there isn't much room for freedom of thought and/or expression during church meetings; most testimonies are a repeat of what everyone else said.  Many members are conditioned from a young age to share a certain type of witness and/or testimony, which is usually based on what their parents believe.    

 

And what does that have to do with ME? I don't think it is cute. I agreed with the church when they first started discouraging children from bearing testimony in F&T meeting until they were ready and asked parents to give time for their children to do it at home. So to reply to my post with the idea that I was ok with it was odd to me seeing that I don't think I have ever said anything about that on this board.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I think if my child were wanting to do this, I have no problem with writing it down and working on it ahead of time in order to get the best wording to express how and what she wants to say.  Once written, I would go in with her to discuss it with the Bishop and get his opinion on what was and was not acceptable to say across the pulpit during Testimony meeting.  Thus leaders would know what to expect and it wouldn't turn Testimony Meeting into a public forum.  I would also have her ask her friends if any were invited not to record it, not record it myself, but if she wanted a personal record of it, record her at home.  

If she still wanted to give the whole speech as presented (because if accurately portrayed here, I see it as a speech and not a testimony), I would have her do it at home to those she invited to hear it and then let her if wanted, post it online.

 I wouldn't have a problem with her sharing with a few close friends she was going to do this***** but if it was widely shared, it comes across as more of a public protest.

I don't think one can promote it as following the same standards as other testimonies when so many of those standards are ignored in the production of the video, especially knowing her future view was contrary to church teachings.

*****If the outline provided is correct, it comes across less of a testimony and more a public declaration of personal beliefs to me.  Having it recorded and shared online, it comes across now to me more of a manifesto...it is being used not to allow this young woman to share her beliefs with friends and family, but as a public statement, whose intent now appears to be to shame her leaders and the Church to sway public opinion.  I find this to be an inappropriate use of Testimony Meeting.

I may edit this later if I come across info that corrects my view that she knew what she was saying was contrary to Church doctrine, that there were more than just one or two friends invited for emotional support, that it was with her approval that it was recorded and it was with her approval that it was shared online.

An excellent approach!

[Darren10]

Can I span a website or what?

I think I need to modify my initial reaction a bit as I am happy to have learned that this "brave little girl's" testimony was initially frowned upon by her parents. I think their subsequent approach was flawed and Calm's approach would have been far better. So, I'm glad this girl wasn't used as a token symbol but boy she quickly became one.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

in your opinion. FYI the American Psychological Association reports, " Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion."  

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

For married heterosexuals the law of chastity is easier. Not saying it is easy, but it is easier.  Please stop judging. 

So what do they do? Remain celibate for the rest of their lives? or marry someone they don't feel romantically attracted to?

If there is an afterlife what is the worst that can happen to them? Just the telestial kindgom which is better than life on earth today. 

If there is no afterlife what is the worst that can happen to them? Not enjoying this life.  

If LDS members want her to listen to them, why not also listen to her? 

I lived in the basement of the guy who headed the APA at the time. Besides that, I don't always agree with what I hear from them and I don't follow them so...OK, that's what they say.

Regarding your remarks after your link:

1) I am not judging unrighteously so far as I know.

2) Remain celebite or marry a person of the opposite gender, even a masculine one if that fits better.

3) Loosing exaltation is damnation by definition. The Father does not desire anything less for us and thus neither should we desire anything less for ourselves.

4) Who cares then?

5) They do listen and listen a lot I suspect. I say this partially in light of the fact that this girl's "best friend" is her bishop. Fast and Testimony is not the correct forum to publicily declare sin as not a sin and perfectly acceptable to our Heavenly Parents

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Can I span a website or what?

I think I need to modify my initial reaction a bit as I am happy to have learned that this "brave little girl's" testimony was initially frowned upon by her parents. I think their subsequent approach was flawed and Calm's approach would have been far better. So, I'm glad this girl wasn't used as a token symbol but boy she quickly became one.

Are we quite sure such assertions are reliable? 

I'm convinced, and it would take a lot more than self-aggrandizing and self-justifying claims to shake that conviction,that this tweener child has been used by cynical adults to push a trendylefty political and antimormon agenda. Forget golden rules, this is a gross violation of the categorical imperative.

And that doesn't even begin to address the elephant: the hyper sexualization of a sixth grader.

 

Despicable

[Darren10]

37 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are we quite sure such assertions are reliable? 

I'm convinced, and it would take a lot more than self-aggrandizing and self-justifying claims to shake that conviction,that this tweener child has been used by cynical adults to push a trendylefty political and antimormon agenda. Forget golden rules, this is a gross violation of the categorical imperative.

And that doesn't even begin to address the elephant: the hyper sexualization of a sixth grader.

 

Despicable

Quite possible and, yes, despicable. 

[Garden Girl]

30 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The problem is, the church encourages and inoculates members to "repeate what everyone else said," not just in F&T meetings.  Why do people always play F&T bingo?  Because many members just sound like parrots and repeat exactly what the church wants to hear; thus, there isn't much room for freedom of thought and/or expression during church meetings; most testimonies are a repeat of what everyone else said.  Many members are conditioned from a young age to share a certain type of witness and/or testimony, which is usually based on what their parents believe.

 

Ouag...  you have misrepresented the Church and by far the majority of its people... the variety of thoughts and expressions on this board ought to give you a clue... yes, as a believing member I, and others, do follow a set of beliefs and doctrines, and a vocabulary expressing them...  and why not... why wouldn't we... these are the foundations and basic principles of our faith, and we follow them according to our own understanding.  Last testimony meeting, as we always do, we invited our visitors to join in bearing their Christ-centered testimonies...  over half of those participating were visiting from Utah, and they shared wonderful expressions of their individual faith and testimonies... 

GG

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. While I'm a bit skeptical of how things shook out - especially the very unusual filming - the ideal situation was what you describe. It was an odd situation all around. The Bishop, who apparently was friends with the family and familiar with things, was gone. The Stake President happened to be there and was presiding. Lots of people not of the ward were apparently there - why isn't clear. (Baby blessing perhaps?) It's very unusual no matter what one thinks. I'd say the Stake President, from my very limited information, probably didn't act ideally. But indisputably the family in question didn't either. (Seriously - the solution is to make a viral video attacking the church and go on a gay podcast?)

In her podcast interview, Savannah says the Bishop is the father of her best friend, but he didn't know about her tendencies towards same-sex attraction.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, my friend David C. Martin, a gay LDS member, left his wife and children so that he could be a "wife" to another man -- so he stated to me.  He was living in St Louis at the time, and has since passed away (1939-1992).

Probably another victim of church leaders telling a gay man if they will only marry they will become straight.  How sad for his family.  I am glad at least the church has stopped that false promise.  Too bad so many families suffered from church leaders making promises to gay men in the name of God.  Yet now gay men are suppose to believe that they speak for God this time around.  And people wonder why this Beehive doesn't believe them and instead has her own truth.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello cacheman...  Well then, that explains my backyard...

GG

 

Tacenda... yes, they can and do adopt children, or obtain children to raise by using some other method such as artificial insemination.  But two women, or two men, cannot physically create life.  But through means such as adoption, gay married couples are able to experience the joys of raising children as a family.

GG

Just curious GG.  If it was possible for two men or two women to create a biological child, would it make any difference to you?  And given the genetic work scientist are now working on, is it conceivable that actually may be possible in the next 20 years?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. While I'm a bit skeptical of how things shook out - especially the very unusual filming - the ideal situation was what you describe. It was an odd situation all around. The Bishop, who apparently was friends with the family and familiar with things, was gone. The Stake President happened to be there and was presiding. Lots of people not of the ward were apparently there - why isn't clear. (Baby blessing perhaps?) It's very unusual no matter what one thinks. I'd say the Stake President, from my very limited information, probably didn't act ideally. But indisputably the family in question didn't either. (Seriously - the solution is to make a viral video attacking the church and go on a gay podcast?)

It seems so easy to attack this family and pass judgement on their motives for so many on this board.  I am not talking about you individually.  I think you have shown a lot of compassion for this young girl.  And I think you will consider this more than some.  I am using your statement to talk about all of those who have jumped to the conclusion devious motives were involved. But actually we don't know who shot the video or why.  This young girl tells us that there were some invited guests there who wanted to hear her message.  Perhaps they were not members.  Perhaps they didn't know all of the Mormon rules against videos in the chapel.  Perhaps they just wanted to record what they though was going to be a special event.

We also don't know how this video got posted.  What we do know is that the family did not post it.  Perhaps a non member was so outraged at how this young 12 year old was treated that they posted it on their Facebook page and someone picked it up and posted it on YouTube.

For some reason it seems that so many are quick to judge a family who is struggling with this issue without actually knowing any facts at all.  So sad.  But I really think the church leaders set the tone for these kinds of quick judgements to occur.

One thing is crystal clear.  If there is any embarrassment to the church over this incident, it was brought on entirely by the church itself.  This could have also been a viral video showing how much love and concern church members could show to a 12 year old girl who is trying to come to grips with her future in the Mormon church.

Edited June 16, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"Shutting down a child..."

The untouchable that just won't quit. The promoters, most likely her parents, chose well.

Since you accuse the parents of being the promoters without any actual knowledge, just your ability to jump to judgement, what do you think the parents gain by doing this?  They aren't gay.

Edited June 16, 2017 by california boy

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Since you accuse the parents of being the promoters without any actual knowledge, just your ability to jump to judgement, what do you think the parents gain by doing this?  They aren't gay.

I always said "most likely". I think they gain public love for their "brave little girl". Now, cone on, what parent *wouldn't* want that sort if thing ?

[MormonVideoGame]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I lived in the basement of the guy who headed the APA at the time. Besides that, I don't always agree with what I hear from them and I don't follow them so...OK, that's what they say.

Regarding your remarks after your link:

1) I am not judging unrighteously so far as I know.

2) Remain celebite or marry a person of the opposite gender, even a masculine one if that fits better.

3) Loosing exaltation is damnation by definition. The Father does not desire anything less for us and thus neither should we desire anything less for ourselves.

4) Who cares then?

5) They do listen and listen a lot I suspect. I say this partially in light of the fact that this girl's "best friend" is her bishop. Fast and Testimony is not the correct forum to publicily declare sin as not a sin and perfectly acceptable to our Heavenly Parents

1) Imagine your friends and family telling you "your behavior is a serious sin", I honestly don't think that is healthy. 

2) Easy to say

3) Yes, but that is assuming the plan of salvation is real. You have more to lose if it is not real by no enjoying your life now. 

4) again, "If there is an afterlife what is the worst that can happen to them? Just the telestial kindgom which is better than life on earth today. If there is no afterlife what is the worst that can happen to them? Not enjoying this life." 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

In her podcast interview, Savannah says the Bishop is the father of her best friend, but he didn't know about her tendencies towards same-sex attraction.

You mean he didn't know she was gay? Or are you using "tendencies towards same-sex attraction" ironically?

Probably a silly question.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems so easy to attack this family and pass judgement on their motives for so many on this board.  I am not talking about you individually.  I think you have shown a lot of compassion for this young girl.  And I think you will consider this more than some.  I am using your statement to talk about all of those who have jumped to the conclusion devious motives were involved. But actually we don't know who shot the video or why.  This young girl tells us that there were some invited guests there who wanted to hear her message.  Perhaps they were not members.  Perhaps they didn't know all of the Mormon rules against videos in the chapel.  Perhaps they just wanted to record what they though was going to be a special event.

We also don't know how this video got posted.  What we do know is that the family did not post it.  Perhaps a non member was so outraged at how this young 12 year old was treated that they posted it on their Facebook page and someone picked it up and posted it on YouTube.

For some reason it seems that so many are quick to judge a family who is struggling with this issue without actually knowing any facts at all.  So sad.  But I really think the church leaders set the tone for these kinds of quick judgements to occur.

One thing is crystal clear.  If there is any embarrassment to the church over this incident, it was brought on entirely by the church itself.  This could have also been a viral video showing how much love and concern church members could show to a 12 year old girl who is trying to come to grips with her future in the Mormon church.

Since I am big on communication and wish that people wouldn't make assumptions because it hinders communication I have a couple of questions - I don't want to make assumptions on what you said.

Do you feel that because I have seen a serious of events and think there is a good chance this situation is a set up and that someone is using this girl that I am being judgmental of any specific person? 

Do you feel that someone who has said the stake president is "unloving" is judgmental? 

Are you ok with the idea that there may be other things in play that show how the SP handled this was a good thing? 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Since I am big on communication and wish that people wouldn't make assumptions because it hinders communication I have a couple of questions - I don't want to make assumptions on what you said.

Do you feel that because I have seen a serious of events and think there is a good chance this situation is a set up and that someone is using this girl that I am being judgmental of any specific person? 

I think that "good chance" doesn't mean fact or exactly what happened.  So I think it is important to be clear that the facts are actually unknown.  To spin a story that the whole thing was a set up and that the parents put her up to it is pure speculation and not a judgement at all.  It think it is fine to say that you don't think parents should use their children to make political statements.  I don't think it is right either.  But when someone says this is what is going on in this instance, then they have crossed the line from fact to pure speculation.  I think that is what everyone should avoid.

 

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Do you feel that someone who has said the stake president is "unloving" is judgmental? 

Are you ok with the idea that there may be other things in play that show how the SP handled this was a good thing? 

I think the same thing applies to this statement.  We don't know the facts.  We don't know how the stake president handled the situation after the meeting closed. So I don't think anyone on this board is in a position to call the stake president unloving.

What we can talk about is how he handled the situation from what we do know.  Was it a good idea to just cut her mike and tell her to sit down.  Or perhaps there are better ways to handle these kinds of situations.  I think that is worth talking about.  How to improve upon a situation rather than the witch hunt approach.

I think what happened here might very well be a wake up call for what is to come in the church.  Gay teens are much more willing to be out than ever before.  And their friends are much more understanding that there actually are friends that are gay.  How is the church going to deal with this issue in the future?  Shutting them down seems like a knee jerk reaction that doesn't take into consideration the reaction that may have on ALL of the young people in the ward.  Is it even possible for a gay person to feel welcome in the church and still want companionship in this life?  Can the church have room for someone who according to church policy, openly sins but still loves God and loves the gospel?  I think if you were to ask the younger generation, they would say yes.  If you were to ask the older generation, they would call them apostates and excommunicate them.  Now this would be interesting to talk about.  Because it is a real issue that doesn't rely on judging anyone.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I always said "most likely". I think they gain public love for their "brave little girl". Now, cone on, what parent *wouldn't* want that sort if thing ?

Doesn't seem like a strong motivation to me.  You can count me as a parent that couldn't care less if their kids video went viral or that they got 1000 likes or 10,000 likes. I personally think these parents think more of their daughter than that.  The fact that they tried to talk her out of doing this for 4 months says they are a different kind of parent than one you are suggesting.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think that "good chance" doesn't mean fact or exactly what happened.  So I think it is important to be clear that the facts are actually unknown.  To spin a story that the whole thing was a set up and that the parents put her up to it is pure speculation and not a judgement at all.  It think it is fine to say that you don't think parents should use their children to make political statements.  I don't think it is right either.  But when someone says this is what is going on in this instance, then they have crossed the line from fact to pure speculation.  I think that is what everyone should avoid.

This isn't the question I asked. I asked if you felt I was being judgmental of any specific person. 

I don't recall a single instance of anyone saying her parents "put her up to it". I may have missed that. It surprised me when I first read that from someone since I hadn't seen it. It may have been said later, but I am pretty sure it wasn't there the first time I saw the accusation.

If I could go back and change one thing I said, I would. I realize I could edit it, but that isn't the same thing. Rather than saying it was a set up I would say "it felt like a setup". Because it did and it still does. I badly mishandled my words there.

I have a hard time saying that because I recognize how many repped that post and with the change of wording they may not still feel that way. And honestly I also don't want to be seen as back peddling.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I think the same thing applies to this statement.  We don't know the facts.  We don't know how the stake president handled the situation after the meeting closed. So I don't think anyone on this board is in a position to call the stake president unloving.

So why did you only call out those who were judging the family and not the stake president? 

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

What we can talk about is how he handled the situation from what we do know.  Was it a good idea to just cut her mike and tell her to sit down.  Or perhaps there are better ways to handle these kinds of situations.  I think that is worth talking about.  How to improve upon a situation rather than the witch hunt approach.

I think this is one of the big problems. Just as I don't have enough info to know it was a set up how can anyone really say how the SP acted was not the best way?

Was it a good idea to just cut her mike? On the surface I too would say no, but lacking anything more than the 4 minutes I saw I really can't make that call either. 

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think what happened here might very well be a wake up call for what is to come in the church.  Gay teens are much more willing to be out than ever before.  And their friends are much more understanding that there actually are friends that are gay.  How is the church going to deal with this issue in the future?  Shutting them down seems like a knee jerk reaction that doesn't take into consideration the reaction that may have on ALL of the young people in the ward.  Is it even possible for a gay person to feel welcome in the church and still want companionship in this life?  Can the church have room for someone who according to church policy, openly sins but still loves God and loves the gospel?  I think if you were to ask the younger generation, they would say yes.  If you were to ask the older generation, they would call them apostates and excommunicate them.  Now this would be interesting to talk about.  Because it is a real issue that doesn't rely on judging anyone.

So my last question again, "Are you ok with the idea that there may be other things in play that show how the SP handled this was a good thing? "

You basically asked me to consider other possibilities (I actually did do that before I posted, though my wording may suggest otherwise). I'm asking if you are willing to do that as well. 

------

Separating this because I don't want my other question to get lost.

Let's assume that God's plan really is that it takes both a man and a woman. That same sex marriage would be against his plan and doctrine. That He is concerned by the teachings that same sex marriage is a good thing because it takes people away from him. That he is even more concerned because this teaching is more and more likely to be preached from the pulpit.

How would YOU handle it when it is done? If it happened on a consistent basis would you keep doing the same thing?

I recognize that you don't believe this way, but if you don't consider it from the other person's point of view it really doesn't help the person who is dealing with it. 

And for the record I really hate the question "what would Jesus do?" because he has authority I don't have so it usually doesn't apply to me and if I have to ask myself that question I am unlikely to know the answer. If this is part of your answer it is unlikely to help me even while I totally feel we should be trying to be like Him. 

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Ouag...  you have misrepresented the Church and by far the majority of its people... the variety of thoughts and expressions on this board ought to give you a clue... yes, as a believing member I, and others, do follow a set of beliefs and doctrines, and a vocabulary expressing them...  and why not... why wouldn't we... these are the foundations and basic principles of our faith, and we follow them according to our own understanding.  Last testimony meeting, as we always do, we invited our visitors to join in bearing their Christ-centered testimonies...  over half of those participating were visiting from Utah, and they shared wonderful expressions of their individual faith and testimonies... 

GG

 

Please explain how I have misrepresented the church.  First of all, many of those who grew up in the church are, in fact, conditioned from a young age to share a certain type of testimony that the church and its leaders want and expect to hear.  

How was this young girl's testimony also not a "wonderful expression of her faith?" Because of the simple fact that her personal beliefs and/or lifestyle did not align with what the church wanted, she was forced to sit down, despite the fact that, IMO, she was sincere and focused on Christ.  

Members and visitors are only invited to share their Christ-centers testimony as long as they stay within the lines of what the church dictates as appropriate.  Not much freedom of thought/speech inside the church, especially in group settings (during meetings and other events); you must meet the mold or you are shut down and silenced.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

Are we quite sure such assertions are reliable? 

I'm convinced, and it would take a lot more than self-aggrandizing and self-justifying claims to shake that conviction,that this tweener child has been used by cynical adults to push a trendylefty political and antimormon agenda. Forget golden rules, this is a gross violation of the categorical imperative.

And that doesn't even begin to address the elephant: the hyper sexualization of a sixth grader.

 

Despicable

I stopped reading this thread before I got very far into it -- too disgusted to continue. 

But that was a question that was always present in my mind that it seemed no one bothered to deal with: How can a 12-year-old understand her own sexuality enough to even know what her orientation is?

I suspect some brainwashing here, if not by family members, then by society. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

The way this thread is going my philosophical ramblings would not be on topic, perhaps another thread.

I thought that you were making a good point, which seemed to me to be that the act of creation is a partnership between a man and a woman.

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I stopped reading this thread before I got very far into it -- too disgusted to continue. 

But that was a question that was always present in my mind that it seemed no one bothered to deal with: How can s 12-year-old be aware of her own sexuality enough to even know what her orientation is?

I suspect some brainwashing here, if not by family members, then by society. 

How old were you when you realized you liked girls instead of boys? Late teens? College?

Edited June 16, 2017 by HappyJackWagon