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

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

. . .Given all that there's a fair bit of evidence that gene expression leading to those categories starts well before puberty. . .

I don't always follow scientific developments, but have they found a genetic test for homosexuality?

Can we start determining sexual identity with a DNA sample?

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what this girl did. She didn't tell everyone to be gay. She didn't tell them that being gay was better than being straight. She wasn't recruiting. Therefore, your question is a strawman.

She was explicitly recruiting for her view. From Cinepro's list which I just reread since I'd missed her bringing friends to hear and her parents trying to stop her for 4 months. "She feels like the Church leaders need to be 'more supportive' of the LGBTQ community 'instead of being really rude to them and accept them for who they are and let them do what they want to do.'"

But you're right that the Allred example entails a recruiting for a different sect. So change that to say someone from the Manti group who practices polygamy for quite a while as Mormons before forming their own group after the Manti temple kerfuffle.

My point is that if someone got up in F&T meeting, bore their testimony of living polygamy, said God wanted her to practice polygamy, and thought the Church should be more accepting of polygamists and let them practice polygamy we'd all think they were acting inappropriately.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't always follow scientific developments, but have they found a genetic test for homosexuality?

Can we start determining sexual identity with a DNA sample?

No. In fact I said the exact opposite.

Quote

The big question is how much of this is set by genes, how much is a manifestation of the gene expression heavily affected by environment, and how much is open to habitual/social change. There's no consensus there although I think the evidence is fairly strong that for at least some people its a combination of genes and environmentally triggered gene expression.

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

I'm not calling Scott or USU78 or any others that were sickened by this video, gay or homophobic, but some homophobic people are actually gay themselves. They hate that part of themselves so much that they hate gays. There have been studies about this. So some on this thread may want to tone it down. 

Also, one of you, I believe it was USU78, mentioned something about the parents putting Savannah up to this, and how disgusting it was. And that she was too young to even know. I just read a comment on another board and it hit me, that some members do the same thing when they take their youngsters up to the stand and the children mimic their parent's testimony. Isn't that the same thing? Think how LDS train their young from the get-go. And btw, these parents weren't doing that at all. This girl probably knew long before, and she needed a way to express it. She most likely felt like she needed everyone to know so that it didn't turn into a big gossip fest amongst members of her ward trying to guess about it. 

There was a gay young man in my ward years ago, that had a little crush on a friend of my son's. This didn't go well back then as you can imagine, and this young man went totally into himself, blocked everyone out and completely stopped coming to church. His parents were hurt too. Easy to see why. 

USU78 and Scott or anyone else sickened, do you know anyone on a personal level that is gay? Ask them when they knew they were gay. Get to know a gay person in your life, it may change your mind. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

SMH.
How do so many people miss the point?
 

I can understand how a child could miss the point.  But I don't get how adults can miss the point.  And I despise this idea that if something makes someone happy, or if someone wants to do something, then that means that God is accepting of it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

She was explicitly recruiting for her view. From Cinepro's list which I just reread since I'd missed her bringing friends to hear and her parents trying to stop her for 4 months. "She feels like the Church leaders need to be 'more supportive' of the LGBTQ community 'instead of being really rude to them and accept them for who they are and let them do what they want to do.'"

But you're right that the Allred example entails a recruiting for a different sect. So change that to say someone from the Manti group who practices polygamy for quite a while as Mormons before forming their own group after the Manti temple kerfuffle.

My point is that if someone got up in F&T meeting, bore their testimony of living polygamy, said God wanted her to practice polygamy, and thought the Church should be more accepting of polygamists and let them practice polygamy we'd all think they were acting inappropriately.

Much better example. Thanks.

I don't know that polygamy is an innate attraction and a part of a person's biological identity so much as it is an acceptance of a religious claim.

 

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

. . .I don't know that polygamy is an innate attraction and a part of a person's biological identity so much as it is an acceptance of a religious claim.

 

It think that there are many who make the argument that Monogamy is inherently unnatural and that multiple sexual partners would be the "Innate Attraction" of most males.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Danzo

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Much better example. Thanks.

I don't know that polygamy is an innate attraction and a part of a person's biological identity so much as it is an acceptance of a religious claim.

 

Doesn't matter. Both are contrary to the laws of God and position of the Church. Hence, the pulpit in sacrament meeting should not be given over to anyone to propagandize for either. 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know that polygamy is an innate attraction and a part of a person's biological identity so much as it is an acceptance of a religious claim.

Most evolutionary psychologists say that's the basic male biology. Likewise a drive towards promiscuity is typically seen as biological. 

Now of course there are counter-arguments especially by some feminists who tend to see all human behavior as socially determined. Often to the point of embracing a blank slate view of biology. But there are obvious inherent contradictions to that view - with how homosexuality is viewed being the obvious example.

And of course merely having a biological drive to something doesn't make it right. It's just that in terms of how appeal to biology goes there's often a double standard at play. So usually a claim is added about consequences. So homosexuality is defended because it's not hurting anyone whereas polygamy and male promiscuity are typically seen as denigrating women. Whether that argument works is of course open to heavy debate.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can understand how a child could miss the point.  But I don't get how adults can miss the point.  And I despise this idea that if something makes someone happy, or if someone wants to do something, then that means that God is accepting of it.

I can't stand that idea.
It's right up there with:
- God loves me no matter what so that means he loves my imperfections
- God wouldn't do anything to make anyone unhappy
- And any implication that God will violate one iota of eternal law because he loves us

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Ah. I didn't know that. Still, if only because of the connection with the family he might have handled things somewhat differently. I've not listened to the podcast so I'm just going by what I've heard reported.

A few people have said the parents tried to talk her out of doing it. Since you listened to the podcast could you confirm if that was the case?

Here's what she says:

Quote

Savannah: Yeah. So, I wanted to share my testimony from the beginning of this year, and I kept asking and asking, and getting a “no”, because it would be—

Jerilyn: Who were you asking?

Savannah: Oh, my mom and dad, and they finally said yes, and we started writing my testimony, and we went through a couple of rough drafts, and by the time we finally made the perfect one, I was waiting until the next Fast Sunday, and when I finally did do my testimony, I got most of the way there, like, I only had a couple more sentences of a paragraph to read out loud, and I got cut off by my microphone being turned off by the stake president, and, yeah, and then, I was pretty sad and happy at the same time.

http://iliketolookforrainbows.com/2017/05/30/episode-2-savannahs-story-the-transcript/

One thing that is apparent from the interview is that Savannah had a lot of help writing her speech.

Edited June 16, 2017 by cinepro

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

I don't always follow scientific developments, but have they found a genetic test for homosexuality?

Can we start determining sexual identity with a DNA sample?

There is no evidence that homosexuality is an inherited trait.  There is no real reason to believe that any gene would in involved in sexual identity anymore than it affects political or religious views.  DNA is involved in the production of proteins and other things that are required for a cell to function or produce something for the body to function.  To suggest that there is a gene or series of genes out there that produce substances that encourage or compels Joe to be attracted to Steve over Mary does not make a lot of sense. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

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

I am not really sure what you have said about the parents.  Have you suggested that they were the ones that shot the video?

Quote

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.

Really?  
 

Quote

 

Here is one from RevTestament

The comments on the youtube page are foul and disgusting, and for the parent(s) to post this video like that just smacks of political manipulation. If they are that angry with the Church, they should leave rather than to use their daughter this way to make a political statement. This little girl is brave, and I wish her the best.

 

Quote

 

Here is one from juliann

Here is what happened, apparently. A young woman made a statement in sacrament meeting. Her parents helped her write it. And then filmed it for all to see. That is significant, like it or no

 

Quote

 

here is one from clarkgoble

More than just share it. Typically it's seen as incredibly inappropriate to film during sacrament. That the parents did this strongly suggests more planning to all this.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Here is one from USU78

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.

 

____________________

Quote

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.

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

Perhaps you could quote the comments calling the stake president unloving.

 

Quote

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. 

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. 

I would be more than happy to comment on anything you would like me to.  I just have to know what you are talking about.  What things in play???

 

Quote

------

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. 

I post and interact with people on this site to learn and understand views that are different than mine.  So yes, I consider different points of view all the time.  If I understand your question, you are asking me how I would handle gay members, believing current church policies are true.  I hope I got that right.  No one has ever asked me that question before.  So let's figure out exactly what the church believes about it's role is.

Let's look at the facts that I think the church would agree with.  

First, The only people that want to marry someone of the same gender is someone that is gay.  Would you agree with that?

Second, One of the main mandates of the church is to bring people to Christ.  Would you agree with that?

Third, the church doesn't really know for sure how God will handle those that are gay in the next life.  There has been speculation on this, but no doctrine.  Would you agree with that?

Fourth, Gay marriage is a sin and against the Plan of Salvation.  Would you agree with that?

 

Perhaps I should let you comment on what I have written before I offer my suggestion.  I don't want to start if you feel I have misrepresented anything that the church believes.  So let me know what you think of these three facts.

Edited June 16, 2017 by california boy

[cinepro]

Another point that is being totally ignored in the hysteria over her being told to "sit down" and having her mic cut is that the leaders on the stand didn't know where this was going, and how much longer she was going to continue.  This is Savannah and her parent's fault for not warning them ahead of time (understandably), but that is the risk you take when you blindside leaders like that.

After the fact, Savannah can tell us that she just had one more relatively innocuous paragraph to go, but the leaders on the stand didn't know this.  Was she going to start talking about other doctrines she didn't agree with?  Was she going to express her crush on another girl in the ward?  Was she going to veer in another direction that no one could see coming?

 

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, MorningStar said:

F&T meeting isn't for written talks.  I've seen people get up to give sermons and it's not the purpose of the meeting . 

Even if it were NOT F&T...

When I was on my mission in Germany there was a young woman who had been asked to give a talk in Sacrament meeting.  I don't know what her topic was, but what she actually did was give a talk about sin and guilt in which she condemned guilt and more or less said that sin was OK, and we shouldn't feel guilty because that's bad for your pysche.  There happened to be a member of the stake high council present, and he interrupted her talk with a surprised comment when it became clear that she was preaching false doctrine, but he didn't stop her.  After she finished and sat down he went to the pulpit and proceeded to refute some of what she had just said.  

A church meeting is not a place for airing false doctrine, even if heartfully felt.  And if false doctrine is trotted out, then it must be countered.  

[carbon dioxide]

14 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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. 

They can use their agency to do whatever they want.  They can remain celibate for the rest of their lives or a few decades of life, a blink of an eye on the eternal scale or they can violate the commandments for say 30 or 40 years, then have to face the payment of that action for up to 1000 years in spirit prison and then get the bronze medal in the telestial kingdom.   Yes it might be as good if not a little better than earth life but they can inherit something thousands of times better.  Is a short time in mortality engaging in homosexual behavior worth giving up all that for eternity?    I liken this decision to like winning a prize for one billion dollars but comes with two options.

Option 1: One can collect their billion dollar prize after a short period of time 

Option 2: Cash the award immediately for a Big Mac and fries instead of getting the billion dollars.   

Small sacrifice in mortality is option 1.  Choosing to violate the commandments to be with the one one loves is option 2.  Perhaps the biggest tragedy is those that choose option 2 not only give up a whole lot but there is no promise they will ever see each other again after death and in the resurrection. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I thought they had said the parents shot the video. If I'm wrong on that I'll retract some of what I said. Although honestly most people's cynicism meter goes up because of the shooting of the video and bringing of friends to hear (I didn't know that was true - I thought it was just a lot of people there from outside the ward) Whether intentional or not it makes it appear much more likely to be a kind of "gotcha" moment.

My understanding is that a well known anti-Mormon posted it but that we don't know how they got it.

But of course we do know a lot of facts and they went on that gay podcast to talk about the situation. 

To say it was brought on entirely by the church seems wrong. I'd be the first to admit the stake president didn't handle it ideally although I'd assume he was ill prepared to have to deal with something like that. So if we're going to be understanding of the young woman we probably should be equally understanding of the stake president who was put in a pretty difficult situation. But to lay it all on the stake president rather than the parents who didn't see anything wrong with the statements made seems wrong. The talk was written out before hand and the parents read that. The portions that clearly were against church doctrine were rather obvious and the parents should have known that.

Even if the stake president had acted perfectly they must have known that those doctrinal claims were going to raise conflict in the ward.

 

First, there is no mention of who shot the video.  So we don't know if it was the parents or one of the guests or one of the kids in the ward for that matter.  And we don't know how the anti mormon received the video.

Second, I was responding to those that were accusing the beehive and their parents for shooting a video just to embarrass the church and to fulfill an agenda   If there is something that they didn't like about the way the stake president did in this situation and felt like the video was put up to embarrass the church, then you can hardly blame a beehive for the behavior of the stake president can you?  

I personally don't think how the stake president handled things was perfect either.  But I certainly understand why he did what he did.  Was there a better way to handle this?  Actually that was the question I asked.  I think it is one that needs to be asked.  Not to point fingers, but to learn how better to handle these kinds of situations in the future.

[Jeanne]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

This....and all about the wonderful vacation..on and on about so many nonsensical things.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the question is the old environment vs. biology question. A lot of people think that say when people younger than 10 talk about attraction it's largely driven by the social norms in their environment. So girls talk about how dreamy the latest boy band is less because of biological drive than because of mimicking what they see socially. This is also partially why some see the downward push of sexuality to teens and the like as so destructive.

That said, the lower age for puberty especially for girls is fairly well known. 12 is not at all an uncommon time to have the biology develop. Likewise puberty isn't a one time thing but develops over time and at different rates for different people. Some of that is admittedly due to non genetic factors that affect gene expression. So, for instance, it's commonly thought that the age for puberty that's been lowering in the west the past few decades is tied to better nutrition along with obesity. Some think chemicals in the environment might be having an effect as well.

Scientists typically break sexuality into three components. One is identity (what you perceive yourself as). An other is attraction or what genders you're attracted to and by how much. The third is performance or how you tend to act. People tend to assume these are all the same but it's not uncommon for one to manifest differently from biological averages. So you might have someone who identifies as male, is attracted to females, but likes to act in stereotypical female ways. The big question is how much of this is set by genes, how much is a manifestation of the gene expression heavily affected by environment, and how much is open to habitual/social change. There's no consensus there although I think the evidence is fairly strong that for at least some people its a combination of genes and environmentally triggered gene expression.

Given all that there's a fair bit of evidence that gene expression leading to those categories starts well before puberty. That is people start to recognize both their identity independent of social norms and their attractions prior to puberty hitting. But of course what makes this all so messy is that not everyone is the same.

Anyway in this case given that 12 is a not uncommon time for these to manifest within puberty I'd assume it's reasonable that in this case the girl knew. Although it's certainly possible she's responding more to social pressure. But I'd think we should only conclude that if we had a fair bit of evidence for it.

This reminds me of a story a guy told me about his growing up.  When he was about 7 his father thought that his son was, well just not manly enough.  So he decided to get his son a train set for Christmas.  Christmas morning came and my friend opened up the package.  Then the went up stairs and created a dress with a long trail using the wrapping paper from the train set as well as some of the other discarded wrapping.  Then he defended the stairs in the grandest of way that he could.  At that point, his father gave up on the idea of making his son butch.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I love that story.  I am not suggesting that someone knows they are gay when they are 7.   It took me until I was 13 to realize that I had no attraction to girls.  That only became more apparent as I grew older.  I also never played doctor or fooled around with either sex.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

First, there is no mention of who shot the video.  So we don't know if it was the parents or one of the guests or one of the kids in the ward for that matter.  And we don't know how the anti mormon received the video.

Second, I was responding to those that were accusing the beehive and their parents for shooting a video just to embarrass the church and to fulfill an agenda   If there is something that they didn't like about the way the stake president did in this situation and felt like the video was put up to embarrass the church, then you can hardly blame a beehive for the behavior of the stake president can you?  

I personally don't think how the stake president handled things was perfect either.  But I certainly understand why he did what he did.  Was there a better way to handle this?  Actually that was the question I asked.  I think it is one that needs to be asked.  Not to point fingers, but to learn how better to handle these kinds of situations in the future.

Quote

He could of stood up..put his arm around her and tell her how much she is loved.  Let her finish...What other way would have been best for her to let all of them know that she is who she is..and still wants to belong. 

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not calling Scott or USU78 or any others that were sickened by this video, gay or homophobic, but some homophobic people are actually gay themselves. They hate that part of themselves so much that they hate gays. There have been studies about this. So some on this thread may want to tone it down. 

Also, one of you, I believe it was USU78, mentioned something about the parents putting Savannah up to this, and how disgusting it was. And that she was too young to even know. I just read a comment on another board and it hit me, that some members do the same thing when they take their youngsters up to the stand and the children mimic their parent's testimony. Isn't that the same thing? Think how LDS train their young from the get-go. And btw, these parents weren't doing that at all. This girl probably knew long before, and she needed a way to express it. She most likely felt like she needed everyone to know so that it didn't turn into a big gossip fest amongst members of her ward trying to guess about it. 

There was a gay young man in my ward years ago, that had a little crush on a friend of my son's. This didn't go well back then as you can imagine, and this young man went totally into himself, blocked everyone out and completely stopped coming to church. His parents were hurt too. Easy to see why. 

USU78 and Scott or anyone else sickened, do you know anyone on a personal level that is gay? Ask them when they knew they were gay. Get to know a gay person in your life, it may change your mind. 

Big rep Tacenda!

[cinepro]

28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

They can use their agency to do whatever they want.  They can remain celibate for the rest of their lives or a few decades of life, a blink of an eye on the eternal scale or they can violate the commandments for say 30 or 40 years, then have to face the payment of that action for up to 1000 years in spirit prison and then get the bronze medal in the telestial kingdom.   Yes it might be as good if not a little better than earth life but they can inherit something thousands of times better.  Is a short time in mortality engaging in homosexual behavior worth giving up all that for eternity?    I liken this decision to like winning a prize for one billion dollars but comes with two options.

Option 1: One can collect their billion dollar prize after a short period of time 

Option 2: Cash the award immediately for a Big Mac and fries instead of getting the billion dollars.   

Small sacrifice in mortality is option 1.  Choosing to violate the commandments to be with the one one loves is option 2.  Perhaps the biggest tragedy is those that choose option 2 not only give up a whole lot but there is no promise they will ever see each other again after death and in the resurrection. 

CFR that earthly-homosexuals want to spend an eternity as heterosexual gods.

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Another point that is being totally ignored in the hysteria over her being told to "sit down" and having her mic cut is that the leaders on the stand didn't know where this was going, and how much longer she was going to continue.  This is Savannah and her parent's fault for not warning them ahead of time (understandably), but that is the risk you take when you blindside leaders like that.

After the fact, Savannah can tell us that she just had one more relatively innocuous paragraph to go, but the leaders on the stand didn't know this.  Was she going to start talking about other doctrines she didn't agree with?  Was she going to express her crush on another girl in the ward?  Was she going to veer in another direction that no one could see coming?

 

I think this is the most salient point made so far.

If I were the bishop in this case (gosh, I hope I don't get called to that position), I would have stopped her "testimony", as gently and as politely as possible, but I would have stopped it.  

Those of you who agreed with what she said, and think that she should have been allowed to continue in her public diatribe despite it being completely inappropriate for Fast and Testimony meeting and containing false doctrine would probably have stopped someone else who got up and started spouting something that you considered wrong and clearly teaching false doctrine.  Let's say some young woman (or old, for that matter) got up and started going on about how she had fallen in love with her married bishop and how she should be permitted to be his second wife.  I suppose that would have been OK, too?  Or if someone else of a more sinister bent got up and spoke of how necessary it was to bar Jews from the Church and put them all into ghettoes where they could be better controlled.  Or any of a number of other things that you might strenuously disagree with!  Would you think that someone speaking such things be allowed to continue to the end of their "talk"/"testimony"?

I highly doubt it.

As for the "God made me this way" argument, that is a load of baloney.  I have Attention Deficit Disorder.  Should I, therefore, flush my meds down the toilet and just let my ADD go to its limits?  I am nearsighted, so should I throw my eyeglasses away and revel in my unfocused vision?  Just because I was born that way?

I sympathize greatly with anyone who has a trial to bear in their life, and those who must battle against their own natures would seem to have the hardest battle.  But were we sent here to resist and overcome our sinful natures, or to yield to them?  

[Maestrophil]

From the Proclamation on the family: "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."  

And before anyone used the "what about sex for pleasure and not procreation?" trope - any reasonable person understands that "sacred powers of procreation" in an LDS context is the public/polite way of saying "SEX".  That is why I, as a young man was taught to not abuse my "powers of procreation" well before I was married.  The proclamation is pretty clearly stating that any sexuality other than between a married man and wife is not in keeping with God's desires for us, and thus, is sin.  As many have said, the girls statement at this testimony meeting was that she intended to sin, by very definition, and that God would be OK with it, and that God made her the way she is, and does not make mistakes.

That whole line of reasoning bothers me too.  God did not 'make' any of us the way we are.  Biology did (Plus maybe a bit of our pre-mortal selves shingles's through).  Babies are born with all kinds of abnormalities (and yes, I am stating homosexuality is abnormal - the majority is heterosexual, so anything else is a variation, thus not 'normal' which doe snot mean 'bad').    So to say the natural state in which we are born is just fine, why even try and overcome anything?  Just say 'God don't make no junk" and carry on doing what makes you 'happy'.   

 

I am not minimizing the pain felt by people as they try and make sense of the biological and psychological cards dealt them in this life, and reconcile them with their belief systems.  I love and feel empathy for all my brothers and sisters with their various challenges.  However, that love and empathy can not negate when practices are clearly in violation of God's laws.  At the end of the day, I feel it is unreasonable for someone to expect to feel 'welcome' in the church when feeling welcome requires others to turn a blind eye to sin.  For a gay person to expect to have church members applaud their words when they promote a gay lifestyle choice at a church meeting is IMO naive and silly.  Had this young woman said something like "I know I was born gay.  I don't understand shy, but I know it is what I am, and I know God loves me still.  I will do my best every day of my life to please him as best I can.  I want to be happy, and I don't know how I can do that without being in a gay relationship, but I will trust that God will help me find true happiness."  THAT would be a great and honest testimony that shown faith.  This was a declaration of independence IMO.

[Maestrophil]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think this is the most salient point made so far.

If I were the bishop in this case (gosh, I hope I don't get called to that position), I would have stopped her "testimony", as gently and as politely as possible, but I would have stopped it.  

Those of you who agreed with what she said, and think that she should have been allowed to continue in her public diatribe despite it being completely inappropriate for Fast and Testimony meeting and containing false doctrine would probably have stopped someone else who got up and started spouting something that you considered wrong and clearly teaching false doctrine.  Let's say some young woman (or old, for that matter) got up and started going on about how she had fallen in love with her married bishop and how she should be permitted to be his second wife.  I suppose that would have been OK, too?  Or if someone else of a more sinister bent got up and spoke of how necessary it was to bar Jews from the Church and put them all into ghettoes where they could be better controlled.  Or any of a number of other things that you might strenuously disagree with!  Would you think that someone speaking such things be allowed to continue to the end of their "talk"/"testimony"?

I highly doubt it.

Plus, Monday morning quarterbacking is really easy.  Being in that uncomfortable situation, and making an on the spot decision would have been hard for any of us.  In a perfect world, I agree with what some posters have said - I would have gotten up and stood by the young girl, put my hand on her shoulder, and asked if I could say something.  Then while she was up there with her, bear testimony that I know God loves her too, and that He will always love her. Then I would ask her if she would like to give a SHORT closing sentence.  After that, I would remain at the pulpit, thank her for her testimony, and bear a testimony of my own, then turn the time back over to the congregation.  But even then, who knows how that would be received.  Leading the masses, you will always do wrong by someone.