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

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Yer preachin' to the choir, Jeanne!  I do understand that much.  And from experience.

One of my sons was cooking spaghetti noodles the other day, and I suggested he might do better to break the dry noodles in half before trying to put them into the somewhat too small pot -- and got told to stop telling him what to do!  Nicely, but still... there is a proper way to cook spaghetti noodles, and then there's the sinful way!  What's a father to do?

[Jeanne]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Yer preachin' to the choir, Jeanne!  I do understand that much.  And from experience.

One of my sons was cooking spaghetti noodles the other day, and I suggested he might do better to break the dry noodles in half before trying to put them into the somewhat too small pot -- and got told to stop telling him what to do!  Nicely, but still... there is a proper way to cook spaghetti noodles, and then there's the sinful way!  What's a father to do?

Suck up spaghetti...

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Of course that's not really true either. The church absolutely cares what you think. They ask about it regularly in temple recommend interviews and PPI's and other interviews. If you don't think correctly, even when asked privately behind closed doors, then you will be subject to consequences imposed by leaders. It may mean not getting a calling, or attending a child's sealing etc, but it seems clear to me the church cares about what is believed, and not only what is publicly shared.

I agree that speaking with her afterwards would have been much kinder. Instead, he humiliated her in a very public setting, with no apparent compassion or empathy. It's true that these kinds of situations can be challenging for a leader trying to decide what to do, but that's why I think we should lean towards kindness, gentleness, and love unfeigned.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course that's not really true either. The church absolutely cares what you think. They ask about it regularly in temple recommend interviews and PPI's and other interviews. If you don't think correctly, even when asked privately behind closed doors, then you will be subject to consequences imposed by leaders. It may mean not getting a calling, or attending a child's sealing etc, but it seems clear to me the church cares about what is believed, and not only what is publicly shared.

I agree that speaking with her afterwards would have been much kinder. Instead, he humiliated her in a very public setting, with no apparent compassion or empathy. It's true that these kinds of situations can be challenging for a leader trying to decide what to do, but that's why I think we should lean towards kindness, gentleness, and love unfeigned.

Does anyone know if there were warnings, regarding this subject, to the teen or her family ahead of time, and if so, how many?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

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

GG- In the first paragraph you explain how the bishop is telling people what is and isn't appropriate to say in a testimony.

In the second paragraph you are saying Oug is misrepresenting the church when he states that they want people to repeat the same things everyone else said. You may not like the characterization, but he's accurate. Ever heard of the testimony glove? The church really seems to be trying to script testimonies

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Does anyone know if there were warnings, regarding this subject, to the teen or her family ahead of time, and if so, how many?

I don't think that is known. But it doesn't sound like it. ( at least to me)

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Speaking only for myself I'm making a distinction between what someone does and the person and their accountability. As I've said I don't the the girl is capable of understanding all of this fully. So I'm not judging her. I think going to the stand and saying things directly against pretty major doctrines is crossing a line. However I honestly don't think anything should happen to the girl. The parents on the other hand have much more accountability in all this.

In saying all this I completely understand the frustrations of those who are gay and feel like they don't have a whole lot of reasonable choices. I can completely understand those who feel like they shouldn't need to change. I understand those who think the doctrine is wrong even if they don't usually want to think through the implications. However going up in front of a church service to call the church wrong is just plain inappropriate and really is basically a kind of apostasy. The examples of polygamy and racism pretty well show what the problem is. The only reason I think people draw a distinction is because, as some noted, they don't believe in polygamy or racism but do think gay relations should be normalized in the church. That is they're sympathetic to her beliefs. 

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course that's not really true either. The church absolutely cares what you think. They ask about it regularly in temple recommend interviews and PPI's and other interviews. If you don't think correctly, even when asked privately behind closed doors, then you will be subject to consequences imposed by leaders. It may mean not getting a calling, or attending a child's sealing etc, but it seems clear to me the church cares about what is believed, and not only what is publicly shared.

I was speaking in terms of membership. Certainly for worthiness for callings some beliefs matter a great deal. I would think it completely inappropriate for someone to be a Bishop or a Stake President who didn't think Pres. Monson or Joseph Smith were prophets, for instance.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I believe her "testimony" objectively contained false doctrine.  Whether it could be considered a diatribe or a sign of apostasy would be a bit of a stretch and would require far more insight than we have on this board.
I do think that there was an element of protest contained within her words as well.

But speaking false doctrine and a sideways protest of Church stance are hardly mortal sins.  And I think your getting offended on her behalf is sweet, but misplaced.

[cinepro]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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?  

I referee a lot of soccer, and even though I've had hundreds of hours of training and thousands of hours of experience, I still encounter situations with players and coaches or spectators where I feel totally blindsided and have to figure out how to handle it on the spot.  And then later I'll think about it and talk with other refs and can usually come up with a better course of action, and we all learn from these experiences.  But in the moment, you just hope your training and experience keep you from messing up too badly.

The leader was presented with a shocking situation, and did the best he could.

Seriously.  A 12-year-old girl stands up and says she's a lesbian and looks forward to marrying (presumably) a woman, and that she thinks God is okay with that.

Certainly, if we had an ex-Mormon atheist sitting on the stand presiding he would have known exactly what to do.  He could have let her finish, then stood up and put his arm around her and said to the congregation "I know it was probably hard for Savannah to share that, and I hope we can all support her as a lesbian.   And Savannah, based on research I've done on the internet I want you to know that I'm sure there's a beautiful, vivacious woman out there who is interested in being with you once you turn 18."  And everyone could have cried and clapped and carried Savannah on their arms out the back of the chapel, and the meeting could have ended early because there was no more to be said.

 

But that's not the reality of Mormon Sacrament Meetings, and in the reality of the world we live in, the guy did the best he knew how in the moment he was presented with something extremely shocking.

If he had known she had one or two innocuous paragraphs left might he have let her finish?  Maybe.  But again, he had to to go with the information he had.  It's not his fault he was blindsided with an impossible situation.  It is Savannah and her parent's fault.

Edited June 16, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Does anyone know if there were warnings, regarding this subject, to the teen or her family ahead of time, and if so, how many?

I think Cinepro said that in the podcast that while the Bishop was a friend that he didn't know what they were going to do or that the girl felt like she was gay. So my impression was that this was her coming out party.

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

14 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Does anyone know if there were warnings, regarding this subject, to the teen or her family ahead of time, and if so, how many?

No.  No one in any position to "warn" her knew.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

[juliann]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

 

There is a split between radical feminists and liberal feminists. The Mormon feminists are the latter.  It is the radical feminists who are holding the line on protecting woman as a biological designation rather than a collection of gendered attributes a man can merely claim while the liberal feminists are heavily into a version of intersectionality which doesn't always stand behind women, ironically. For instance, Mormon feminists can be seen defending transwomen who enter sports events and defeat biological women. The disputes are getting downright ugly even violent on the international stage. Transactivists and supporters blocked Germaine Greer from receiving an honorary doctorate because she is holding to women being a biological not a gender matter. So liberal feminists saying they honor 2nd wave feminists rings hollow for me. 

Anyway, a derail but I think it is important to very specific about feminism nowadays.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

What if a 12 year old girl stood up and read a 15 minute prepared script with the following general message: "I have a testimony that God hates gay people, and hope that we can all follow his example. I hope that they get what they deserve, and I believe that we should not extend any kindness to such filth.  I hope someday that anybody who bakes a cake for a gay wedding will be excommunicated for supporting gay people............"

Should the bishop extend the same kindness and patience in letting this little girl finish her opinion?  

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Nobody's beating up on the poor, confused girl. But then you knew that

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is a split between radical feminists and liberal feminists.

I'll confess that I never really saw a whole lot of consistency in the feminist description. There was a bit in first wave and second wave feminism. Since then though it seems like about as meaningful a category as postmodernism.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

When my father bought me a train set for Christmas, I think he got more enjoyment out of it than I did.  I wouldn't have made the wrapping paper into a dress, however.  I would have been more impressed it he had gotten me a book.  Or a set of Army soldiers. Trains?  Meh.

I remember being definitely sexually attracted to girls as early as 7 or 8 years old -- and I didn't even know what sex was at that point.  My cousin Jim (who is gay) seemed to be sexually attracted to boys at the same age, and I'm pretty sure he didn't know what sex was, either.  He and I might be on opposite sides of a continuum where some people could go either way, and eventually their state vector collapses to one side or the other (or both, of course).  And perhaps you were not as close to that end of the spectrum as my cousin was.

Sorry for the quantum physics terminology, but it seems to apply.

[Garden Girl]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

GG- In the first paragraph you explain how the bishop is telling people what is and isn't appropriate to say in a testimony.

In the second paragraph you are saying Oug is misrepresenting the church when he states that they want people to repeat the same things everyone else said. You may not like the characterization, but he's accurate. Ever heard of the testimony glove? The church really seems to be trying to script testimonies

Hi HJW...

Oh, I see... you like the parents whispering in their children's ears... or others droning on in a travelmony, etc. and disagree with the bishop giving guidance...

We will just have to agree to disagree because I don't see things the way you fellows do.  In fact our F&T meetings are quite inspiring, and a lot of our visitors apparently come from wards where they still do the parent/child thing, etc. and they tell us how different our meeting is... and how enjoyable, and spiritual.  At least half of our last testimony meeting participants were visitors and they gave wonderful Christ-centered testimonies.

GG

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

4 hours 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?

I wasn't talking about just the parents.  I was asking about any specific people.  I am having a hard time answering your question.  I have talked about whoever shot the video - parents, friend etc. I think though we are probably past the point of it making any difference now. So we can skip it.

 

I agree.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Really?  

None of those say she was put up to it.  Rather, they say she was used.  ie they are not saying that the parents encouraged her to go up and share this, film it and share it with the world.  They are saying that the parents (or whoever) used the girl and her desire to share her feelings and beliefs.  

And now that I have gone through the next question I did find one post that actually said they put her up to it.  I missed that the first time around. 

 

Ok

 

1 hour ago, Rain said:

____________________

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

Jeanne: What saddens me is that this ward missed out on a loving opportunity.  Now..this girl will either grow up and grow with her own understanding with God and the church..or she will/can be shamed and go down that slippery path that leaves her outside..afraid..and hating herself.  For whatever reason she wrote all of this..and is taped..the church missed out and because of it..some ward teens are going to remember and some may walk away.

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

stemmelbow: I say even if she got some help from her parents, or whatever some of these posters are claiming by calling foul, you hit the nail on the head.  It doesn't matter.  What matters is love and support.  To shut people down is akin to kicking them out.  It essentially means such a person can't share him/herself in the Church.  Please...that view sucks.  Church sucks if that's what it is. 

I only went so far as page 4.  No one said directly that he was "unloving" to this point, but they express actions and assumptions of what they feel is unloving.     

Well to be fair, I also see no post that calls the stake president unloving.  I think it is fine to talk about his actions because we do know what those were.  I am not one that is condemning his actions.  Turning off her mike and telling her to sit down is one option.  It is the option that he chose to do.  I don't like playing Monday Morning Quarterback.  But I think the stake president did have a valuable teaching moment that he could have taken.  He could have reached out to her.  Told her that God loves her, and then commented on any doctrine that may have needed correcting.  But I come from an entirely different perspective.  So I certainly don't fault him for what he did.  Others want to talk about his actions, I don't see how that is speculation.  It is just suggesting a different approach.  I think people are also free to suggest a different approach this young beehive could have taken.

 

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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???

You suggested reasons why this may not be a set up. People who didn't know better shooting the video etc.  Things that may have been in play that I and others may not have known about.  So I am asking you to imagine reasons why what the SP did, may have been a good and right thing. Normally I wouldn't care, but if you are saying many are judgmental and there are possible reasons why we could be wrong then I would expect you to be able to see that it is possible that those who think he had no justification in "shutting her down" may be wrong as well.

 

Yes the stake president may have done the right thing.   But that wasn't his only option.  And I think that is what people have been commenting on. That is different than speculating on what someone's motives were or what was "really" behind this testimony as the quotes that I posted talked about.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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?

lol I can imagine there are some who are not gay that would want to do that, but I find it unlikely and extremely rare so I will say yes.  

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

yes

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?

yes

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

Honestly, I am not sure of that, but everything I have understood points to that. It just makes complete sense to me. If the church were to suddenly announce that they were good with gay marriage I would make it a matter of prayer and wouldn't just automatically leave the church.  I am very much aware that there are many things I do not have a clear understanding on yet.  

But it doesn't matter as I am looking for an answer to a question that relies on this being true.  

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.

Four.  

 

Ok so we are basically on the same page concerning the church's position and responsibility is.  Could the church consider this option?

Welcome everyone, even gay couples.  Quit calling them apostates.  Start baptizing their children.  Tell them that they are welcomed to get married and be active in the church   Be truthful and acknowledge that the church leaders. really don't know how God will deal with gay couples but let God sort that out in the next life.  Isn't that exactly what the church teaches when multiple couples are married to multiple spouses in the temple when their first spouse dies?  We don't how how that will all work out.  But we leave that up to God.  Church leaders no longer decide who should be with who and who is allowed to marry who.  It is not that long ago that wasn't the case.  Remind everyone that the law of chastity means no sex outside of marriage for all of God's children.  

Would this approach still meet all of the mission objectives in the church?  Would it change any of the marriages and families that are already following the plan given to them?  So what if God does not in the end recognize those gay marriages.  Perhaps those gay couples may still be much closer to living the principles of the gospel then they would be if the church continues its current policy of kicking them out of the church and the fellowship of the saints and prohibiting their children from being baptized.  Perhaps it is a kinder more loving gospel that for some, seems to ring true, to be more in line with the teachings of Christ. 

_______________

I am not going to defend this idea.  You asked a question, I gave you my thinking on it.  In no way am I suggesting that the church should take this approach.  I am not the one that is guiding the church.  But I don't see how my suggestions would not be in line with what we do understand about the gospel.  Maybe the church will never get over the concept that gay marriage is a sin.  At least not in this generation.   I hope I answered what you were asking.  

[gopher]

What would the reaction be if the girl said she is a lesbian but intends to remain faithful to her testimony of the restored gospel and keep the law of chastity as it is currently taught in the church?  That would take even more courage, imo. Unfortunately, it would likely result in vicious attacks on her by those opposed to the church.

Reading the comments on youtube, huffpo,fark,etc is depressing.  The level of hatred towards the LDS church and its members is appalling.  I hope it doesn't lead to violence.  This week a man shot a congressman and others nearby because of his hatred towards them. 

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

No.  No one in any position to "warn" her knew.

The more I think about this, the more concerns it raises. Why wasn't the mother at the mic. Why oh why would you send your child up to do this, exposed and unprotected without even the bishop friend there.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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?  

I'm not so sure his reaction was not the best that could have been expected under the circumstances. Perhaps if anything he should have acted sooner. It is the responsibility of the person who presides over a meeting to not allow undoctrinal or anti-doctrinal content to be promulgated from the pulpit. For any length of time. 

If this incident has taught us anything it is that presiding over a Church meeting is a weighty responsibility. 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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.

If the parents really didn't want Savannah to be "publicly humiliated or shamed by leaders", then the obvious thing to do would be to involve the leaders in the situation.  It's not rocket science.  If the leaders wouldn't let Savannah get up and give her speech in the first place, then if she does it without them knowing about it beforehand, then they'll probably want to stop her while she's giving it.  The content of the speech is just as objectionable either way.  There isn't a rule that says if you can make it to the pulpit you get to say whatever you want and everyone just has to sit there and listen to it. 

As others have pointed out, that is the tradition in many wards, and we've all heard all sorts of random stuff in meetings.  But apparently "I'm a lesbian and look forward to marrying a woman and I think God is okay with that" crosses that line for LDS Sacrament meetings.   

I agree on the last statement, I've heard a lot under the sun in F&T that wasn't doctrine, or even Christlike. Think of all the various ______-monies. 

BTW, if they had let Savannah finish there would be a lot of hoopla about the leaders handling it well. But now, not so much. I read somewhere that someone wrote to Ellen Degeneres about it. Savannah may end up on her show. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

The more I think about this, the more concerns it raises. Why wasn't the mother at the mic. Why oh why would you send your child up to do this, exposed and unprotected without even the bishop friend there.  

I suspect there's more here than meets the eye with regard to the family.