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

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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.

Lol.

Better yet, just link to the exmormon Reddit or wherever people are speaking for themselves.

I bet the mother would have been willing to have more info in the article since she was the one sharing it elsewhere.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

53 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

You are saying that a DNA test can now predict homosexuality with a 70 percent accuracy rate?  

[RevTestament]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Yeah, obviously it is not a gene, but epigenetics can change rapidly after birth, so I am open to the possibility of some environmental factors changing the epigenetics of one or more genes so that sex becomes expressed as homosexuality.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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.

That would definitely improve it.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Rep point!  

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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.

It's just that Calm apparently has a better source than HuffPo. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's just that Calm apparently has a better source than HuffPo. 

Google

It is the same source, the mother.

HP apparently chose not to print the info since it looks like it has been up there for over a month assuming they use Google for research just like everyone else.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

 

I'm hard pressed to think of a better action, even in hindsight. Emergencies need to be dealt with quickly and decisively, and, for better or worse, the message has to be communicated that attempts to hijack the meeting for political statements or PR stunts or whatever won't be tolerated. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

On 6/15/2017 at 10:59 AM, cinepro said:

 

Another interesting chapter in Church history (or culture?) for the internet age:

 

 

 

 

Awkward.....

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm hard pressed to think of a better action, even in hindsight. Emergencies need to be dealt with quickly and decisively, and, for better or worse, the message has to be communicated that attempts to hijack the meeting for political statements of PR stunts or whatever won't be tolerated. 

IMO, it was really awful PR for the church. It would have been better for the bishop to have let her finish. But who knows, it may be a good thing in the long run. I'm thinking of those people that stood up for something. There have been many throughout time. It wasn't comfortable for people but they felt compelled apparently. Savannah is one of them.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Well yes a mutation of some sort would not be inherited.  I don't see how one could explain the mechanism of how sexual identity can be made.  DNA goes to RNA which goes to make a protein.  Do these gay proteins hit receptors on cells for example and inspire people to be attracted to the same sex?  I hardly think so.  I think it would be great if there was a genetic basis for it.  Then gene therapy or medication could be developed to address it. 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The mother is apparently exmormon if I understand her comment correctly, left about a year and a half ago.  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.

That explains a lot.

Edited June 17, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

As he should have.  Quite right.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, it was really awful PR for the church. It would have been better for the bishop to have let her finish. But who knows, it may be a good thing in the long run. I'm thinking of those people that stood up for something. There have been many throughout time. It wasn't comfortable for people but they felt compelled apparently. Savannah is one of them.

My hero in this incident is the priesthood leader who stood on principle and refused to let the meeting be hijacked by dissenters, undoubtedly knowing that his response would not be popular in certain quarters. 

[Rivers]

I am a big fan of free speech but we Latter-Day Saints don't like contention.  Jesus,  in the Book of Mormon, taught that contention is of the Devil. This, I feel, is big reason we have a difficult time handling people who express unorthodox views.  All we know how to do is shut them down.  Having a free exchange of ideas and while maintaining a spirit of peace and is something we as a church can work at.  

[Rivers]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My hero in this incident is the priesthood leader who stood on principle and refused to let the meeting be hijacked by dissenters, undoubtedly knowing that his response would not be popular in certain quarters. 

I like how he reaffirmed the true principles of the girl's testimony.  Not bad for an on-the-cuff response.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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.

So the meeting in effect became a debate tournament rather than the worship service it was intended to be. Not a suitable solution in my book. 

Look, our meetings are for us a sanctuary where  the faithful can expect to be sustained, supported and uplifted in their faith with authoritative teaching and admonition to righteousness. The sanctuary is marred when grandstanding dissenters attempt to occupy the pulpit or the classroom. There are plenty of outside fora where they can be heard. They should leave us in peace. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

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?

Sure.  I thought I did answer that question without speculating on motives.  Now you are asking me to speculate on why he did what he did.  So here goes.  There are a lot of reasons why the stake president did what he did.  Probably first and foremost, he wanted to control the meeting and the narrative on this subject.  He felt like her testimony was inappropriate and that any discussion about what she said would be inappropriate for a F&T meeting.  The stake president had no idea what was going to be said next.  He didn't know how long she would continue to teach what he felt was false doctrine.  He was unprepared for this event.  He did what he thought was appropriate.  He was probably thinking what was best for the congregation and not really thinking so much about the feelings of this little girl.  Like I said, I don't think what he did was wrong.  But in hindsight there might have been better ways to handle that situation.  Isn't that true with most things we do?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

Since you have no doubt how God will deal with gay couples married to each other at judgement, then why don't you share that certain knowledge.  I would love to hear what you KNOW.  Your knowledge is much more than any leader of the church.  I think you have a responsibility to share that knowledge.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My hero in this incident is the priesthood leader who stood on principle and refused to let the meeting be hijacked by dissenters, undoubtedly knowing that his response would not be popular in certain quarters. 

I like your stance Scott.  You feel like it was the best thing the stake president could have done and you don't really care how others view this incident.  At least you own what happened.  And perhaps you are right.  Is all the stake president was doing is once again sharply clarifying how gays are handled in the Mormon church.  No need to be ashamed of that.  It is God's will.  And it certainly is not up to others to decide how F&T meeting should be run.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sure.  I thought I did answer that question without speculating on motives.  Now you are asking me to speculate on why he did what he did. 

Not really.  She is asking you to see if you can come up with reasons that would make his choice the right one, not asking you to speculated on whether or not those were his actual reasons...or at least that is how I am reading her.  She can correct me if I am wrong.  Asking you to assume the position that what he did was right and good and then come up with explanations of how this could be.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

Erased- not finished with this answer before I accidentally pressed save.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really.  She is asking you to see if you can come up with reasons that would make his choice the right one, not asking you to speculated on whether or not those were his actual reasons...or at least that is how I am reading her.  She can correct me if I am wrong.  Asking you to assume the position that what he did was right and good and then come up with explanations of how this could be.

 

Fair enough.  I hope I answered her question anyway.  That was certainly my intent.

[Rain]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

It seems so easy to attack this family and pass judgement on their motives for so many on this board.  I am not talking about you individually.  I think you have shown a lot of compassion for this young girl.  And I think you will consider this more than some.  I am using your statement to talk about all of those who have jumped to the conclusion devious motives were involved. But actually we don't know who shot the video or why.  This young girl tells us that there were some invited guests there who wanted to hear her message.  Perhaps they were not members.  Perhaps they didn't know all of the Mormon rules against videos in the chapel.  Perhaps they just wanted to record what they though was going to be a special event.

We also don't know how this video got posted.  What we do know is that the family did not post it.  Perhaps a non member was so outraged at how this young 12 year old was treated that they posted it on their Facebook page and someone picked it up and posted it on YouTube.

For some reason it seems that so many are quick to judge a family who is struggling with this issue without actually knowing any facts at all.  So sad.  But I really think the church leaders set the tone for these kinds of quick judgements to occur.

One thing is crystal clear.  If there is any embarrassment to the church over this incident, it was brought on entirely by the church itself.  This could have also been a viral video showing how much love and concern church members could show to a 12 year old girl who is trying to come to grips with her future in the Mormon church.

 

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sure.  I thought I did answer that question without speculating on motives.  Now you are asking me to speculate on why he did what he did.  So here goes.  There are a lot of reasons why the stake president did what he did.  Probably first and foremost, he wanted to control the meeting and the narrative on this subject.  He felt like her testimony was inappropriate and that any discussion about what she said would be inappropriate for a F&T meeting.  The stake president had no idea what was going to be said next.  He didn't know how long she would continue to teach what he felt was false doctrine.  He was unprepared for this event.  He did what he thought was appropriate.  He was probably thinking what was best for the congregation and not really thinking so much about the feelings of this little girl.  Like I said, I don't think what he did was wrong.  But in hindsight there might have been better ways to handle that situation.  Isn't that true with most things we do?

I'm curious if you felt you were "speculating" in this first passage I quoted? If not, what is the difference between what you were doing in the first passage and the second? I wonder because you didn't mention anything about "speculating" with your possibilities about the videoing, but only with the man. You've now used the word enough it has started to amuse me. 

This was why I was asking the question about the man's motives. (Not about the word "speculate" as I only noticed you using that later.)  I wanted to see if you would give him the same benefit of doubt. At this point I really can't tell. Your language is so different when speaking in your first quote above, but that may just be because I have asked the question poorly and the length of time and subject content in between. 

------

Reading over it again I see you said, "he was probably thinking" which leads me to believe you thought I was asking a different question than I was. I apologize for not communicating clearly on that. I was expecting an answer more in the lines of "perhaps he turned off the mic because this had become common in his stake and other things hadn't worked so far". 

It's late and I have to get up early. I won't bug you again about this. I appreciate you sticking with the conversation though. 

 

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I'm curious if you felt you were "speculating" in this first passage I quoted? If not, what is the difference between what you were doing in the first passage and the second? I wonder because you didn't mention anything about "speculating" with your possibilities about the videoing, but only with the man. You've now used the word enough it has started to amuse me. 

This was why I was asking the question about the man's motives. (Not about the word "speculate" as I only noticed you using that later.)  I wanted to see if you would give him the same benefit of doubt. At this point I really can't tell. Your language is so different when speaking in your first quote above, but that may just be because I have asked the question poorly and the length of time and subject content in between. 

------

Reading over it again I see you said, "he was probably thinking" which leads me to believe you thought I was asking a different question than I was. I apologize for not communicating clearly on that. I was expecting an answer more in the lines of "perhaps he turned off the mic because this had become common in his stake and other things hadn't worked so far". 

It's late and I have to get up early. I won't bug you again about this. I appreciate you sticking with the conversation though. 

 

Well I am far from perfect in the way I communicate so the fault may very well be with me.  I certainly write things all the time that people take in ways I didn't intent because of a choice of word or a phrase.  I have enjoyed our interaction and your point of view.  Sleep well.