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

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

 

There's a big difference between tolerating a too-long travelogue and allowing the promulgation of false doctrine from the pulpit. The former is an annoyance at worst. The latter is an offense. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

17 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. 

To create a martyr symbol.  Why else?
Look like it worked perfectly.

[Calm]

33 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.  

The mother is apparently exmormon if I understand her comment correctly, left about a year and half ago.  Her coming up might have been felt to be inappropriate?

Savannah apparently hasn't been going to church as her mom says she stays home with her while dad attends with four youngest.  Her mom says something about them both going to coffee meet ups.  She also says she does not intend to allow her husband to "indoctrinate" their children at that point.

Her dad is still a believer, so why not go up with her and follow her testimony with one of his own?

Savannah went up first thing, she was apparently quite eager.  Her mom in the interview (iirc, it may have been Savannah) says they talked over possible reactions to her talking.

She also goes to a Rainbow Mutual group with others who feel like her that the Church isn't all that welcoming.  She wanted it recorded so she could share the experience with them.

This is from the exmormon Reddit group with language so can't link to it.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

32 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.  

Precisely

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

The mother is apparently exmormon if I understand her comment correctly, left about a year and half ago.  Her coming up might have been felt to be inappropriate?

Savannah apparently hasn't been going to church as her mom says she stays home with her while dad attends with four youngest.  Her mom says something about them both going to coffee meet ups.  She also says she does not intend to allow her husband to "indoctrinate" their children.

Her dad is still a believer, so why not go up with her and follow her testimony with one of his own?

Savannah went up first thing, she was apparently quite eager.  Her mom in the interview (iirc, it may have been Savannah) says they talked over possible reactions to her talking.

She also goes to a Rainbow Mutual group with others who feel like her that the Church isn't all that welcoming.  She wanted it recorded so she could share the experience with them.

It's becoming clearer now. 

Thanks for the added information. 

From where I sit it now looks more than ever like an attempted meeting hijack and it was incumbent upon the stake president to act and act quickly. 

Edited to add: It sounds like the father has his hands full in dealing with his wife and daughter. Maybe the reason he didn't go up afterward and bear his own testimony is that he did not want to exacerbate what was already an unseemly spectacle detracting from the reverence of the meeting. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

  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.

I actually did see speculation on his actions. Quite clearly. About why he did it the way he did. No, I don't want to comb through the thread again to show it  - some because I didn't feel comfortable pointing out other people the first time.

Quote

 

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.  

I appreciate that you went to a lot of thought about this and made an effort to answer me, but unfortunately it is not answering the question I was asking. 

All I am asking is for you to imagine reasons why what this man did could have been the right thing to do. Reasons that would have made it ok or maybe even good. You shared reasons that could have made what happened with filming ok - things which I had considered before posting. Now can you do the same for the other side?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Rain

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's becoming clearer now. 

Thanks for the added information. 

From where I sit it now looks more than ever like an attempted meeting hijack and it was incumbent upon the stake president to act and act quickly. 

 

Now the rest of the story....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mornon-girl-comes-out_us_5942cefbe4b0f15cd5b9e561 ...now you know...the reesst of the story!  Paul Harvey, haha. 

No, but in the article it doesn't come off as sinister.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Now the rest of the story....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mornon-girl-comes-out_us_5942cefbe4b0f15cd5b9e561 ...now you know...the reesst of the story!  Paul Harvey, haha. 

No, but in the article it doesn't come off as sinister.

Before reading the link I'm certain both mother and daughter did all they could to make themselves seem heroic if not persecuted. And I'm sure the Huffington Post, being the Huffington Post, lapped it right up. 

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Edited to add: It sounds like the father has his hands full in dealing with his wife and daughter. Maybe the reason he didn't go up afterward and bear his own testimony is that he did not want to exacerbate what was already an unseemly spectacle detracting from the reverence of the meeting. 

The Stake Presidency guy apparently chose who would bear testimonies after that. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Stake Presidency guy apparently chose who would bear testimonies after that. 

He might have been planning to.  Savannah sounds like she wanted to take a stand.  Her parents apparently discussed possible negative reactions to her.  How many parents go up with 12 year olds?  Perhaps she insisted doing it on her own.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The mother is apparently exmormon if I understand her comment correctly, left about a year and half ago.  Her coming up might have been felt to be inappropriate?

Savannah apparently hasn't been going to church as her mom says she stays home with her while dad attends with four youngest.  Her mom says something about them both going to coffee meet ups.  She also says she does not intend to allow her husband to "indoctrinate" their children at that point.

Her dad is still a believer, so why not go up with her and follow her testimony with one of his own?

I'm sure he loves his daughter and supports her (he helped her write her testimony, correct?  "Parents" helped her....).

He had to have known she was going up and what she would say.  Why would he go up afterwards?   Hopefully no one believes he should have corrected her or countered her testimony!  That would have really humiliated her.

He's in a tough spot, I agree.  But I'll bet he only wants his daughter to feel love and acceptance from him as her father.

Edited June 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'm sure he loves his daughter and supports her (he helped her write her testimony, correct?  ("Parents" helped her....).

He had to have known she was going up and what she would say.  Why would he go up afterwards?Hopefully no one believes he should have corrected her or countered her testimony!  That would have really humiliated her.

He's in a tough spot, I agree.  But I'll bet he only wants his daughter to feel love and acceptance from him as her father.

There is no reason to think otherwise, imo.

The only reason I assume he might go up afterwards if he didn't go up at the same time as his daughter is why every parent does after their child speaks after their baptism or other event and that is to express love and pride for them.  It makes more sense for him as the believer to fill that spot than the mother imo.

Otoh, as a parent I have a hard time imagining myself knowing my daughter was possibly entering a lion's den (especially when I noticed the lack of the presumed ally, the bishop, on the stand) not being right there to stand up and take the criticism for her in some way.  Otoh, a 12 year old might be very embarrassed having a parent 'tag along' and may have asked them not to come up with her.  The dynamics of the decision have not been fully explained that I have seen.  It would be nice if they were, but that rarely happens so I don't expect it.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no reason to think otherwise, imo.

The only reason I assume he might go up afterwards if he didn't go up at the same time as his daughter is why every parent does after their child speaks after their baptism or other event and that is to express love and pride for them.  It makes more sense for him as the believer to fill that spot than the mother imo.

Otoh, as a parent I have a hard time imagining myself knowing my daughter was possibly entering a lion's den (especially when I noticed the lack of the presumed ally, the bishop, on the stand) not being right there to stand up and take the criticism for her in some way.  Otoh, a 12 year old might be very embarrassed having a parent 'tag along' and may have asked them not to come up with her.  The dynamics of the decision have not been fully explained that I have seen.  It would be nice if they were, but that rarely happens so I don't expect it.

Yes, I agree with your thoughts.  It would be nice to hear from the Dad.  Sounds like he's trying to keep the family together.  I feel for him, I really do.

[MormonVideoGame]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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............"

that is hate speech 

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Otoh, as a parent I have a hard time imagining myself knowing my daughter was possibly entering a lion's den (especially when I noticed the lack of the presumed ally, the bishop, on the stand) not being right there to stand up and take the criticism for her in some way.  

I am not sure how sacrament meeting is a lion's den for a 12 year old. 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's a big difference between tolerating a too-long travelogue and allowing the promulgation of false doctrine from the pulpit. The former is an annoyance at worst. The latter is an offense. 

Some Bishops allow false doctrine in the pulpit. For example I heard many times that it is okay to drink decaf coffee. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Before reading the link I'm certain both mother and daughter did all they could to make themselves seem heroic if not persecuted.

Religious freedom fans do the same 

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm certain both mother and daughter did all they could to make themselves seem heroic if not persecuted. 

I think it was a bait. The counselor took the bait by shutting down the mic, and that simply doesn't look good in the eyes of most Americans. Now the video is going viral because of that. 

Had he waited for her to finish things would have been way different. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I think it was a bait. The counselor took the bait by shutting down the mic, and that simply doesn't look good in the eyes of most Americans. Now the video is going viral because of that. 

Had he waited for her to finish things would have been way different. 

The priesthood leader presiding over a meeting has a duty to perform whether or not outsiders approve. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

Now the rest of the story....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mornon-girl-comes-out_us_5942cefbe4b0f15cd5b9e561 ...now you know...the reesst of the story!  Paul Harvey, haha. 

No, but in the article it doesn't come off as sinister.

The Huff Post piece is overtly slanted (no surprise there) but it doesn't provide much enlightenment or additional information. I learned much more from Calm' s post. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Stake Presidency guy apparently chose who would bear testimonies after that. 

Interesting. 

Sounds like he did what he should have done to resume control of the meeting. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

 

I have no doubt on how God will deal with gay couples married to each other at judgement.  One of the main purpose of the Church is to prepare people for judgement.  To simply say do whatever one wants and let God sort it does not accomplish that.  As those that are found guilty at that point do not have a chance to repent and change.  It is too late for them.  We need to know ahead of time what is acceptable and what is not so that those who are not living the standards can change BEFORE they get to that point.  If the Lord can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, the church needs to teach that to the members so that they can work to change their lives so that they will not stand condemned.  

God defines of what marriage is according to how God and the church view it.  The scriptures speak of only two acceptable marriage relationships.  Monogamy and polygamy and both share one thing in common--heterosexual relationships only.   There is as much evidence i the scriptures of the acceptance of same sex marriages as the acceptance that a man can marry his microwave oven.  IN both cases the evidence of support is zero.

[MormonVideoGame]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The priesthood leader presiding over a meeting has a duty to perform whether or not outsiders approve. 

a duty to perform what? Is shutting down the mic in the Bishop's manual?  

He could have waited and clarified LDS doctrine after she was finished. Would have been wiser in my opinion. I know a Bishop that did exactly that, he waited.

Thousands on Youtube are going to perceive the councelor as an intolerant man. "Savannah's FULL testimony" now nears 100 thousand views.  That is probably more viral than the CES letter. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

Remember that something can be genetic without being inherited. So I think you're making a basic error there. Down's syndrome is the obvious example of something genetic and not inherited.

An important twin study last year found that homosexual males had specific epigenetic markers that distinguished them from their heterosexual twins but that predicted homosexuality 70% of the time. That's an extremely high prediction rate. 

There's no evidence of a gay gene of course but that's hardly surprising given how complicated human cognition is and how evolution tends to use particular genes for many things.  There's most likely numerous different ways to have a biology of homosexual attraction. There's fairly strong indirect evidence that it's some combination of complex genes and triggers for gene expression. For those not up on biology gene expression is the phenomena of genes functioning in a certain way only in certain environmentally determined settings. The best example is grasshoppers becoming locust with huge rapid morphological changes when population densities are high. Adolescence itself is a complex gene expression affecting human growth, hormones and development through as yet not fully understood triggers.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The priesthood leader presiding over a meeting has a duty to perform whether or not outsiders approve. 

Right but there are numerous ways he could have done that duty - some that would have mitigated what is fast appearing as an intentional setup to make the church look bad.

Again I'm not faulting him. He had a short time to make a decision and it almost certainly was not something he was prepared for. It's easy to think of better actions in hindsight with plenty of time and no stress to impede. I rather doubt I could have performed better under the circumstances. Hopefully he's talked to someone at church headquarters about what to do next.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The mother is apparently exmormon if I understand her comment correctly, left about a year and half ago.  Her coming up might have been felt to be inappropriate?

Savannah apparently hasn't been going to church as her mom says she stays home with her while dad attends with four youngest.  Her mom says something about them both going to coffee meet ups.  She also says she does not intend to allow her husband to "indoctrinate" their children at that point.

Her dad is still a believer, so why not go up with her and follow her testimony with one of his own?

Savannah went up first thing, she was apparently quite eager.  Her mom in the interview (iirc, it may have been Savannah) says they talked over possible reactions to her talking.

She also goes to a Rainbow Mutual group with others who feel like her that the Church isn't all that welcoming.  She wanted it recorded so she could share the experience with them.

This is from the exmormon Reddit group with language so can't link to it.

My initial impression is "poor Savanah.  Her mom is using her as a pawn in her game." 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My initial impression is "poor Savanah.  Her mom is using her as a pawn in her game." 

That is not mine in the least after reading the interview.  Savannah sounds like someone who knows what she wants.  It took months for her to persuade her parents it was what she wanted to do.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Huff Post piece is overtly slanted (no surprise there) but it doesn't provide much enlightenment or additional information. I learned much more from Calm' s post. 

Well then next time there's a Mormon controversy, you can inform the Huff Post that it should just provide a link to whatever Calm writes.