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

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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?

 

True. The didn't know how long she would speak. But did they ask? Instead of telling her to sit down could they have asked something like "are you almost finished?" She had not taken an inordinate amount of time so I don't see a reasonable fear that she would have kept going for another 10 minutes or something. No one tells the leader what they are going to say or how long they will take before bearing a testimony so it seems unreasonable to use that as a possible criticism against her or her family. If only they would have done this one thing that no one ever does, it might have helped. Not likely.

Quote

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

That is clear to me as well and it seems very wise. The words were carefully crafted to walk a line that could have been easily crossed were she speaking extemporaneously. There was no anger or hostility in anything she said. She was poised and prepared. She did her best and planned to speak for a reasonable amount of time. The presiding authority seems to have had a knee jerk reaction based in fear for what might happen.

[Maestrophil]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. The didn't know how long she would speak. But did they ask? Instead of telling her to sit down could they have asked something like "are you almost finished?" She had not taken an inordinate amount of time so I don't see a reasonable fear that she would have kept going for another 10 minutes or something. No one tells the leader what they are going to say or how long they will take before bearing a testimony so it seems unreasonable to use that as a possible criticism against her or her family. If only they would have done this one thing that no one ever does, it might have helped. Not likely.

That is clear to me as well and it seems very wise. The words were carefully crafted to walk a line that could have been easily crossed were she speaking extemporaneously. There was no anger or hostility in anything she said. She was poised and prepared. She did her best and planned to speak for a reasonable amount of time. The presiding authority seems to have had a knee jerk reaction based in fear for what might happen.

Or a reaction to several instances of false doctrine being said...

[HappyJackWagon]

27 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.

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?  

I don't think you know what that word means. Let me help.

Quote

Diatribe - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something:

She was not forceful or bitter. She was not verbally attacking anyone or anything. She was not teaching a false doctrine. She was sharing her experience, her hopes and dreams, and her testimony about God's love.

Bitter diatribe? Try again. Just remember that you are railing against a 12 year old girl.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Or a reaction to several instances of false doctrine being said...

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

[RevTestament]

 Rain: "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."

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

Really? 

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."

Just for the record, I never inferred her parents put her up to it. I believe they either posted the video or it was posted with their knowledge and consent, but perhaps not. Maybe some visitor took it all upon themselves to come do this since the parents may have told them it is against church policy.

What I did say about the "testimony" itself was:

"Even if the statement was the girl's very own words and feelings, parents need to properly guide their child on giving a testimony. They knew what she was going to say, and either let her or persuaded her to go up there anyway. If the latter, I feel it is a despicable abuse of parental guidance for political purposes. If the former, it is poor parenting."

I have now learned more - that the parents or at least her mom - helped substantially in writing this testimony with her through several revisions. This does not help my opinion of what her parents did. It appears to at least be poor parenting to me. 

This is exactly why the Church issued some guidelines regarding testimony meeting. Around this January-February we had a 5th Sunday lesson on this subject and a letter read to us that instructed us to avoid “thank-imonies,” travelogs, preaching and the like. Savannah’s parents should have been aware of this, but allowed Savannah to give her personal statement anyway. Fast and Testimony should not be used to announce one’s coming out of the closet or their personal opinions on living a LBGT lifestyle especially. 

If I were her parent, I would not have written this testimony this way. I stand by what I have said. As one poster noted the statement didn't even conclude as a testimony said in the name of Jesus Christ. i do not believe Jesus approved of them using testimony meeting as a bully pulpit for lesbianism. 

Matt 19:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

Send in the clones . . .

[Maestrophil]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

Yes, you missed something...

[stemelbow]

1 hour 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?

 

Yeah it's something I always wonder when someone who is not bearing a testimony is speaking nonsense which includes teachings not in line with the church and gets 2 minutes into it.  How much more must we endure?  Often it's the same person each month in a given wad.  Yet of the thousand times I've sat through that no church leader cut off the mic.  And perhaps in most cases that had happened they all went much longer than two minutes, even though not only the leaders but the majority of the congregation are wondering how much longer is this going to go?  And what other nonsense is going to be said?  

I admit I've never seen it.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by stemelbow

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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

I don't think all have said that but certainly some have. At the T&S thread from a couple of weeks ago some commenters brought it up.

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

Well, semantically speaking, almost no one gets to declare "doctrine" in the first place, so it would be impossible for me, you or Savannah to actually teach "false doctrine."

But she was expressing ideas that contradict current Church teachings, policies and doctrines.  Most specifically:

Quote

I hope to get married and have a family.

I know these dreams and wishes are good and right.

We can parse the doctrines regarding homosexuality and what people might be allowed to do or not do, but I think once you say that your desire to have a same-sex marriage is "good and right", you've veered off the rails and are now in "false doctrine" territory according to the current Church leadership.

Savannah gets a pass because she is 12-years old, but if anyone else were to teach this in Sacrament Meeting or a Church class, and promote it online in blogs and podcasts, I'm pretty sure they'd wind up in a Church court.

And if she were 18 instead of 12 and went and got married to a woman tomorrow, then according to current Church policy she'd be ex'd almost immediately.

So yeah, when you get up in F&T meeting and say "I hope to one day do something that will get me excommunicated and I think God is okay with that...", you've taught "false doctrine."

There are also bigger issues underneath about how she feels about the authority and inspiration of Church leadership.

Quote

I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am.

From the Mormon scheme of things, it's problematic to start making your belief in God conditional on whether or not he "knows" something that you know.  The Church obviously teaches no one is "perfect" just the way they are, so this doctrine would seem invalidate the "if" premise of God being "there" for Savannah.

Edited June 16, 2017 by cinepro

[Maestrophil]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

"I believe if God is there, He knows I am perfect just the way I am, and would never ask me to live my life alone, or with someone I was not attracted to."

"I know my earth parents and my heavenly parents love and accept me just the way I am."

 

Both of those statements carry falsehoods as they relate to LDS theology/doctrine.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

So it's OK to say something is right as a practice so long as you don't say it's church doctrine. Really? Would you be fine with a polygamist doing that at an LDS church service?

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is clear to me as well and it seems very wise. The words were carefully crafted to walk a line that could have been easily crossed were she speaking extemporaneously. There was no anger or hostility in anything she said. She was poised and prepared. She did her best and planned to speak for a reasonable amount of time. The presiding authority seems to have had a knee jerk reaction based in fear for what might happen.

I think the problem is that the comments went way over the line and in this case I don't think you can say the parents aren't to blame. The young woman may have wanted to cross that line too, but being 12 she isn't really able to understand the significance of that line or even understand the line at all. That's simply not true of her parents.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People keep saying that she was teaching false doctrine. Rubbish.

She was sharing her thoughts and testimony. She didn't present anything as church doctrine. Or did I miss something?

Really, are we starting to circle back now?

She stood at the pulpit in an LDS chapel and proclaimed her beliefs that contradicted the LDS Church teachings.
Calling it testimony doesn't make it any less false doctrine.
If I have a testimony that Adam is Heavenly Father and I state that testimony over the pulpit, you'd better believe I'd expect to get shut down (even if it's true).

Edited June 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Maestrophil said:

"I believe if God is there, He knows I am perfect just the way I am, and would never ask me to live my life alone, or with someone I was not attracted to."

"I know my earth parents and my heavenly parents love and accept me just the way I am."

 

Both of those statements carry falsehoods as they relate to LDS theology/doctrine.

Are you prepared to tell you children that you don't love them or accept them as they are?   On any doctrine??

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Yes, you missed something...

OK, fair enough. If I missed where she taught a doctrine can you please show me where she taught a doctrine versus sharing her personal feelings?

[Jeanne]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem is that the comments went way over the line and in this case I don't think you can say the parents aren't to blame. The young woman may have wanted to cross that line too, but being 12 she isn't really able to understand the significance of that line or even understand the line at all. That's simply not true of her parents.

The thing is..you baptize kids at the age of 8 and they are accountable...why discount her testimony at the age of 12?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

"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?  

A lot of the quotes you are quoting don't say what you are taking them to say. In my case since the parents helped write the speech clearly they were involved and responsible. That's considerably different from my claiming "they put her up to it." Rather they knew what was coming and approved of it. Therefore they have a large degree of responsibility for what was said.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem is that the comments went way over the line and in this case I don't think you can say the parents aren't to blame. The young woman may have wanted to cross that line too, but being 12 she isn't really able to understand the significance of that line or even understand the line at all. That's simply not true of her parents.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The parents made inappropriate comments? I have no problem holding them accountable for bad comments (if they made them) but why should they be held accountable for other people's comments?

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is..you baptize kids at the age of 8 and they are accountable...why discount her testimony at the age of 12?

At 8 most are sufficiently accountable in order to say they can sin. (I suspect that in the details the actual age will vary by individual) To say you're sufficiently accountable to be able to sin is not to say you are sufficiently accountable to be responsible for every choice. Age of consent laws which are near universally supported are a case in point.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The parents made inappropriate comments? I have no problem holding them accountable for bad comments (if they made them) but why should they be held accountable for other people's comments?

Because I do not consider a 12 year old girl sufficiently accountable to understand the import of all she is saying. Her parents do. Her parents should have explained why she shouldn't get up and told her to wait until she was older.

Put an other way, do you think the church should treat her the same way they'd treat a 25 year old saying the same thing? Maybe you do but I bet most don't. The result for a 25 year old would very likely be a warning and potential disfellowshipping or even excommunication. I doubt that will happen to a 12 year old.

And of course I'm also betting that those who think a 12 year old is sufficiently accountable because anyone over 8 is sufficiently responsible also support age of consent rules. If you support age of consent laws then you think teens, especially young teens, don't have full accountability.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is..you baptize kids at the age of 8 and they are accountable...why discount her testimony at the age of 12?

I'm not dismissing her testimony because she is 12. I'm dismissing her accountability for understanding her actions fully. I dismiss her testimony simply because I think she's wrong.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Are you prepared to tell you children that you don't love them or accept them as they are?   On any doctrine??

Love and acceptance are NOT the same thing.
I would never say I don't love my child.
I would say (and say repeatedly) that I don't accept all of their actions.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK, fair enough. If I missed where she taught a doctrine can you please show me where she taught a doctrine versus sharing her personal feelings?

- They did not mess up when they made me to be gay.
- I do believe he made me this way on purpose.
- I believe God would tell me if I was wrong.
- I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy.
- I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am.

All false according to Church position.
 

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 Rain: "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."

Just for the record, I never inferred her parents put her up to it. I believe they either posted the video or it was posted with their knowledge and consent, but perhaps not. Maybe some visitor took it all upon themselves to come do this since the parents may have told them it is against church policy.

What I did say about the "testimony" itself was:

"Even if the statement was the girl's very own words and feelings, parents need to properly guide their child on giving a testimony. They knew what she was going to say, and either let her or persuaded her to go up there anyway. If the latter, I feel it is a despicable abuse of parental guidance for political purposes. If the former, it is poor parenting."

I have now learned more - that the parents or at least her mom - helped substantially in writing this testimony with her through several revisions. This does not help my opinion of what her parents did. It appears to at least be poor parenting to me. 

This is exactly why the Church issued some guidelines regarding testimony meeting. Around this January-February we had a 5th Sunday lesson on this subject and a letter read to us that instructed us to avoid “thank-imonies,” travelogs, preaching and the like. Savannah’s parents should have been aware of this, but allowed Savannah to give her personal statement anyway. Fast and Testimony should not be used to announce one’s coming out of the closet or their personal opinions on living a LBGT lifestyle especially. 

If I were her parent, I would not have written this testimony this way. I stand by what I have said. As one poster noted the statement didn't even conclude as a testimony said in the name of Jesus Christ. i do not believe Jesus approved of them using testimony meeting as a bully pulpit for lesbianism. 

Matt 19:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

I still feel like you are making assumptions.  She didn't say her parents wrote her testimony.  She said they helped.  Perhaps they read what she wrote and asked her to tone down some of her statements and offered alternative ways of saying things.  The fact that this 12 year old tried for 3 months to do this doesn't really suggest the her parents wrote this out.