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

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Wow. What an awful place church would be if every person with an unorthodox view was disfellowshipped or excommunicated. I'm glad that even church policy doesn't call for such a thing, nor would the policy on disciplinary councils support such an action.

Quote

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”  (History of the Church, vol 5, pg 340) Joseph Smith Jr.

 

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's not what I said. I said she isn't claiming to teach church doctrine, and she isn't. She is sharing her opinion just like we do on this board every day. I share my unorthodox opinions all the time but that doesn't mean I'm teaching false doctrine. That means my opinions are unorthodox, just like Savannah's are unorthodox.

But she's doing it in a radically different context than hashing out ideas here. That makes a ton of difference. To say she's merely sharing her opinion seems quite incorrect for a variety of reasons. First off she says she knows which puts it much stronger than mere opinion. (In the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 isn't just an opinion of mine) Secondly the format matters a great deal. If I got up in sacrament and preached polygamy or Adam/God I'd expect a good chance I'd be excommunicated.

Now you may not like that. You might wish church didn't have a degree of orthodoxy required. You might wish it was more like a college dorm with people giving their opinions on stuff. But it's not like that and nearly all Mormons don't treat it as such. Perhaps Savvanah didn't realize that although I'd imagine even at 12 she understood that much. Her parents definitely knew better.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. What an awful place church would be if every person with an unorthodox view was disfellowshipped or excommunicated. I'm glad that even church policy doesn't call for such a thing, nor would the policy on disciplinary councils support such an action.

The church honestly doesn't care what your views are so long as you don't try to promote them to others. So this is not at all what Joseph was talking about. If someone is merely wrong about doctrine, which frankly happens all the time, no one particularly cares. Historically teaching against core doctrines has been grounds for apostasy since the beginning of the church. Again I can completely understand if you don't like that. However that's simply a fact of the LDS church as well as the church in the New Testament and Old Testament.

Had Savannah not said anything in F&T meeting no one would care what she personally believed.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why?

I'm not saying it's not unorthodox, but that doesn't mean she is "teaching false doctrine". Does every testimony shared in F&T meeting, or every feeling shared in an answer during class need to be correlated? Or can we allow for some variation in belief and experience? I know which one I'd vote for.

You mean create a loop-hole for people to not-teach false doctrine by bearing testimony about it instead. 

"I have a testimony and know that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and hope that one day they will again be denied the priesthood.  I know that my hopes and dreams are good and right."

I guarantee that if someone bore that testimony and was not stopped by the bishop, the same people who are decrying the SP for stopping Savannah would be outraged online that the bishop allowed it to continue.  He would be called a homophobe for stopping Savanah's testimony and a racist for not stopping the other testimony.  You can't win with some people.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour 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??

Oh fer cryin' out loud.

My loving and accepting my children is quite apart from wishing they would stop drinking and smoking and living with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage.  And my one son who wished and hoped for his mother to die (she did) and whom I have a restraining order against because of threats of violence -- I still love him, care about him, and would give my life to save his, if it were in my power.  But when they are wrong and doing wrong, well, sorry, but I do NOT accept it.

If one of my children turned out gay I would still have loved him or her.  And I'd welcome his or her partner as a part of the family on the same terms as any other partner or spouse.  I'd even attend their "wedding".  But there is no way I would accept it, because it's wrong. 

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think it's "understandable" because they knew she wouldn't be allowed to give her prepared speech.

I do wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to have her do it when there was someone from the Stake (who presumably doesn't know Savannah) presiding on the stand.  The Bishop obviously knows her well because of her friendship with his daughter, and while I'm sure he would be a little surprised, he would at least have the context of knowing who Savannah is and having some sort of trust with her to direct the situation as needed.

But having a guy who is just there to enjoy the meeting get blindsided by a 12-year-old-girl getting up and reading a prepared statement about how she's a lesbian and looks forward to a same-sex marriage is just really disrespectful to the leadership and the congregation.  Either the parents knew what they were doing and wanted to create a scene, which is tacky and rude, or they couldn't see the situation they were helping to create, which is stupid.

It's not like the Stake announces ahead of time that they will have a presidency member at a certain ward. They just show up. It sounds like this girl really wanted to do it and they had held her off for a while. This tendency to blame the parents because obviously it was a bad idea to do it with someone from the stake present seems a bit crazy. The girl had invited friends to be there which I assume would be a greater motivator to follow through and bear testimony regardless of a stake person being present.

Cinepro- you are perplexing on this thread. Was your account hacked. Is this really Scott or StormRider?  I usually agree with you a great deal. This SP guy wasn't there just to enjoy the meeting. He was on assignment for some reason. He was presiding. That's what he does. Am I to feel bad that he was blind-sided by a 12 year old who spoke eloquently, kindly, softly? She wasn't hostile or loud. She simply shared prepared thoughts. I find it extremely sad that so many are more concerned with "disrespect" to leadership than to a 12 year old sharing her vulnerability through testimony. I don't understand this at all.

The girl represented herself well. She did not create a scene. Even after the SP guy told her to sit down, she didn't argue or try to continue speaking. She immediately left the stand. Seems pretty respectful to me. Should everyone censor every thing they say out of fear that it might somehow disagree with the presiding authority?

The only thing that is tacky and rude was the SP member who asked her to sit down and then assign the bishopric member to buffer the situation by saying something. Oh, and of course all of the attacks aimed at this little girl. This thread depresses me.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The church honestly doesn't care what your views are so long as you don't try to promote them to others. So this is not at all what Joseph was talking about. If someone is merely wrong about doctrine, which frankly happens all the time, no one particularly cares. Historically teaching against core doctrines has been grounds for apostasy since the beginning of the church. Again I can completely understand if you don't like that. However that's simply a fact of the LDS church as well as the church in the New Testament and Old Testament.

Had Savannah not said anything in F&T meeting no one would care what she personally believed.

Of course if she hadn't said anything, no one would know what she believed. We (or even Joseph) would never know if someone erred in doctrine if they never shared their idea or understanding. People share constantly and we don't excommunicate people for it. For a DC to be held for apostasy a member must repeatedly teach a false doctrine even after being corrected by a presiding authority. The authority should meet and discuss with the person. A person should never be disciplined for sharing an idea once in a meeting. Look up the handbook under Disciplinary Councils- Apostacy

[Maestrophil]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not like the Stake announces ahead of time that they will have a presidency member at a certain ward. They just show up. It sounds like this girl really wanted to do it and they had held her off for a while. This tendency to blame the parents because obviously it was a bad idea to do it with someone from the stake present seems a bit crazy. The girl had invited friends to be there which I assume would be a greater motivator to follow through and bear testimony regardless of a stake person being present.

Cinepro- you are perplexing on this thread. Was your account hacked. Is this really Scott or StormRider?  I usually agree with you a great deal. This SP guy wasn't there just to enjoy the meeting. He was on assignment for some reason. He was presiding. That's what he does. Am I to feel bad that he was blind-sided by a 12 year old who spoke eloquently, kindly, softly? She wasn't hostile or loud. She simply shared prepared thoughts. I find it extremely sad that so many are more concerned with "disrespect" to leadership than to a 12 year old sharing her vulnerability through testimony. I don't understand this at all.

The girl represented herself well. She did not create a scene. Even after the SP guy told her to sit down, she didn't argue or try to continue speaking. She immediately left the stand. Seems pretty respectful to me. Should everyone censor every thing they say out of fear that it might somehow disagree with the presiding authority?

The only thing that is tacky and rude was the SP member who asked her to sit down and then assign the bishopric member to buffer the situation by saying something. Oh, and of course all of the attacks aimed at this little girl. This thread depresses me.

I missed any attacks aimed at the little girl...  

[Maestrophil]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course if she hadn't said anything, no one would know what she believed. We (or even Joseph) would never know if someone erred in doctrine if they never shared their idea or understanding. People share constantly and we don't excommunicate people for it. For a DC to be held for apostasy a member must repeatedly teach a false doctrine even after being corrected by a presiding authority. The authority should meet and discuss with the person. A person should never be disciplined for sharing an idea once in a meeting. Look up the handbook under Disciplinary Councils- Apostacy

They let her go on for a very long time IMO - it was fairly obvious the theme was going to continue.  There was no need to belabor the point and the awkwardness for the rest of the attendees.  There is a time and a place for dissenting opinions - testimony meeting is not it. 

[SteveO]

The comments section in the huffpo article is depressing me...we're gonna have another two week rage fest against the church once this starts trending on FB...

[Stargazer]

47 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What action of this 12 year old should the parents not accept?  She was expressing that she is gay and that they love and accept her as she is.   There is no action there.  

Now if she does choose to enter a same sex relationship, then the parents will have to then decide if they will accept that action.

 

 

I do wonder about this concept that a person knows they're gay when they are twelve.  I suppose it's possible -- one of my cousins certainly acted gay when he was very young, and it turned out he was definitely gay when he was an adult.  But I've also known people who thought they were gay when they were young, but found that they weren't when they grew up.

Some of us are rather undifferentiated at young ages and not only don't know what our sexual orientation is, we don't even know what we want to be occupationally when we grow up.  Whoever encouraged this young lady to create this public spectacle did not do her any favors.  Regardless of what she ends up doing with her life, and especially so if she ends up marrying a man after all.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

You mean create a loop-hole for people to not-teach false doctrine by bearing testimony about it instead. 

"I have a testimony and know that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and hope that one day they will again be denied the priesthood.  I know that my hopes and dreams are good and right."

I guarantee that if someone bore that testimony and was not stopped by the bishop, the same people who are decrying the SP for stopping Savannah would be outraged online that the bishop allowed it to continue.  He would be called a homophobe for stopping Savanah's testimony and a racist for not stopping the other testimony.  You can't win with some people.

 

That is clearly an opinion and although I believe it is false, I don't see you teaching it as a false doctrine. It's you having a bad opinion.   (I know it's just an example)

You're right that some of the orthodox members might have been upset that it wasn't stopped. I'd rather have those adults upset than embarrassing a little girl. If the adults couldn't understand the kindness and patience in letting the girl finish, then they have bigger issues to deal with.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course if she hadn't said anything, no one would know what she believed. We (or even Joseph) would never know if someone erred in doctrine if they never shared their idea or understanding. People share constantly and we don't excommunicate people for it. For a DC to be held for apostasy a member must repeatedly teach a false doctrine even after being corrected by a presiding authority. The authority should meet and discuss with the person. A person should never be disciplined for sharing an idea once in a meeting. Look up the handbook under Disciplinary Councils- Apostacy

What happens would depend upon the meeting, which I think I mentioned. But I agree that typically one is given warnings and then if one persists things get more serious. My point though is that it would persisting in this sort of action. Kind of like going onto a podcast and repeating it after being asked to stop ones testimony by the Stake President.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

They let her go on for a very long time IMO - it was fairly obvious the theme was going to continue.  There was no need to belabor the point and the awkwardness for the rest of the attendees.  There is a time and a place for dissenting opinions - testimony meeting is not it. 

If by "a very long time" you mean 2 1/2 minutes, then you're right. It was an eternity.

How do you know the rest of the attendees felt awkward? You may be right, but you seem to be assuming a lot.

 

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

all of the attacks aimed at this little girl.

Disingenuous much?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What happens would depend upon the meeting, which I think I mentioned. But I agree that typically one is given warnings and then if one persists things get more serious. My point though is that it would persisting in this sort of action. Kind of like going onto a podcast and repeating it after being asked to stop ones testimony by the Stake President.

Are you suggesting that she is persisting in teaching false doctrine because she talked on a podcast after the SP told her to sit down? Do you have any reason to believe the SP even spoke to her to explain what he perceived to be wrong? Or did he just tell her to sit down, and then move along? I don't know, and I suspect neither do you.

 

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So hypothetically if a 12 year old girl stood up and bore testimony of polygamy with the implication everyone should join the Allred group you'd also be fine with that?

No, because I don't believe in polygamy, but I do believe being gay is how someone is born--and people should be allowed to love whomever they want.  

[Maestrophil]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If by "a very long time" you mean 2 1/2 minutes, then you're right. It was an eternity.

How do you know the rest of the attendees felt awkward? You may be right, but you seem to be assuming a lot.

 

You are right.  I am assuming a lot.  I would have been uncomfortable, and I am pretty thick skinned.  As I have said, if someone got up and extolled the wonders of illegal drugs in testimony meeting saying that God created pot and it was amazing, and they intended to smoke it until God told them not to, after all, it's not mentioned in the WOW etc.  2 1/2 minutes would indeed be WAY too long to let them keep going.  

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you suggesting that she is persisting in teaching false doctrine because she talked on a podcast after the SP told her to sit down? Do you have any reason to believe the SP even spoke to her to explain what he perceived to be wrong? Or did he just tell her to sit down, and then move along? I don't know, and I suspect neither do you.

I'm saying that repetition in teaching is akin to what I see going on. I've no idea what her SP said to her or if she or her parents were talked to after the F&T meeting. I assume they were but I'd have to imagine the people in the hot chair are primarily the parents. It's honestly hard to get too upset at a 12 year old girl who is pretty immature in understanding all the connotations of what was going on.

As for what the SP does or doesn't do over the following months I can't say. I'm just saying that the church doesn't care what you think, but if you persist in teaching major false doctrine that's a big deal and always has been. This situation isn't much different from say Denver Snuffer ultimately.

As for what I think the SP should have done, I think had it been me I'd have let her continue and then spoken to her afterwards. So I don't think what the SP did was ideal. But again I'd give him a bit of slack as it's not always clear what to do in such situations. It's much easier when you can think about it for a while.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

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.  

That would have been a much better approach.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Disingenuous much?

Not sure why you think I'm being disingenuous. We just disagree.

But I view many of the comments on this board as being very negative toward this girl? Do you disagree with that?

Her testimony has be referred to as a "diatribe" and as "false doctrine" and tantamount to apostasy for which older individuals might receive church discipline. These judgments on this girl are all harsh and I feel incorrect.

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh fer cryin' out loud.

My loving and accepting my children is quite apart from wishing they would stop drinking and smoking and living with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage.  And my one son who wished and hoped for his mother to die (she did) and whom I have a restraining order against because of threats of violence -- I still love him, care about him, and would give my life to save his, if it were in my power.  But when they are wrong and doing wrong, well, sorry, but I do NOT accept it.

If one of my children turned out gay I would still have loved him or her.  And I'd welcome his or her partner as a part of the family on the same terms as any other partner or spouse.  I'd even attend their "wedding".  But there is no way I would accept it, because it's wrong. 

I am cryin' out loud after hearing your trials here.  I think I am just having trouble overall in understanding church values..vs. family.  I really do know that everyone loves their kids..I hope things work out okay for all of you.  Just let them know that you are there and that you love them..which is what you do of course...but now Stargazer...do not nag!!  That doesn't work..tried that.

[Garden Girl]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

Hello Ouag...

First, in regard to testimonies in general... our bishop put a stop to parents bringing their children to the podium and whispering in their ears words for them to repeat... and 2) he made it clear that testimonies should not be travelmonies, thankamonies, etc.  As far as children being "conditioned"  from a young age to share a certain type of testimony... yes, there is a proper way to bear a testimony and they should be given guidance, i.e., a testimony should be fairly brief, not wandering, and one that has some connection to Christ, gospel principles, etc.  As far as usually being based on what their parents believe, why wouldn't that be the case if parents are faithfully living gospel principles... 

Second, it is my opinion that you misrepresent the Church by positing that the Church encourages and inoculates members to "repeat what everyone else said" and not just in F&T meetings."  For instance, when I am asked to speak in Sac Mtg or teach RS, a topic is assigned... but it is up to me to develop the talk or lesson based on my own research and scriptural references to support my words.  However, as a believing member, my words would of course fall within Gospel parameters.

In regard to your last sentence, I would not appreciate it if someone got up and bore a "Christ-centered" testimony that was way out of line with Church doctrine... and I would, as far as I am concerned, find it inappropriate in the setting of F&T mtg. 

I guess my objection, Ouag, is that you generalize too broadly...  I realize we disagree... and most likely always will...

from the beach on a rainy afternoon... GG

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That would have been a much better approach.

The problem is, the leader on the stand did not have the advantage of a few days to think over his response to an emergent situation, but had to react as best he could in the moment.  We fuss over a response that we think is ham-handed, but if we were in his place at that moment, would we have made a better go of it?  

[cinepro]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not like the Stake announces ahead of time that they will have a presidency member at a certain ward. They just show up. It sounds like this girl really wanted to do it and they had held her off for a while. This tendency to blame the parents because obviously it was a bad idea to do it with someone from the stake present seems a bit crazy. The girl had invited friends to be there which I assume would be a greater motivator to follow through and bear testimony regardless of a stake person being present.

Cinepro- you are perplexing on this thread. Was your account hacked. Is this really Scott or StormRider?  I usually agree with you a great deal. This SP guy wasn't there just to enjoy the meeting. He was on assignment for some reason. He was presiding. That's what he does. Am I to feel bad that he was blind-sided by a 12 year old who spoke eloquently, kindly, softly? She wasn't hostile or loud. She simply shared prepared thoughts. I find it extremely sad that so many are more concerned with "disrespect" to leadership than to a 12 year old sharing her vulnerability through testimony. I don't understand this at all.

The girl represented herself well. She did not create a scene. Even after the SP guy told her to sit down, she didn't argue or try to continue speaking. She immediately left the stand. Seems pretty respectful to me. Should everyone censor every thing they say out of fear that it might somehow disagree with the presiding authority?

The only thing that is tacky and rude was the SP member who asked her to sit down and then assign the bishopric member to buffer the situation by saying something. Oh, and of course all of the attacks aimed at this little girl. This thread depresses me.

"Savannah, it looks like Bishop Smith isn't here today, and I know we've worked hard on this but these may be some hard things for people to hear, and I don't know President Young well and we don't know if this will make him uncomfortable to the point that he might even not let you finish, which would be embarrassing to you.  I know we should have talked with the Bishop beforehand since we've been working on this for months and made sure he would be here and be okay with it today, and I know you've invited several friends who are gay who were looking forward to hearing you share your feelings in a Mormon Fast and Testimony meeting because why wouldn't that mean a lot to someone?, even though you could share your feelings with them personally or in a YouTube video like most people do, and that would get a much wider and more attentive audience than our usually noisy and inattentive ward. 

That being said, let's hold off on this until next month, or maybe we can ask for you to be a youth speaker next week.  That's probably the best and most respectful thing to do.  And I think if we want everyone to respect you and the decisions you're making and who you are, we should respect them first."

That wasn't so hard.

As for "attacking her", I have to feign innocence.  If my 12-year old son got up in F&T meeting and said "Hey, I want everyone to know I love girls.  But I don't love just one girl, and I think we should be able to marry more than one girl, and hope that one day I can have a bunch of wives..." and then the Bishop turned off his mic and told him to sit down, I would tell my son "What you did was inappropriate, and you should not have done that."  His sincerity on the issue would be irrelevant, and I wouldn't consider it an "attack."  If he's old enough to say it, he's old enough to be told he shouldn't have done it.

Edited June 16, 2017 by cinepro