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

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Thousands on Youtube [sic] are going to perceive the councelor [sic] as an intolerant man.

[Gray]

15 hours 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.

Given that mind reading is impossible, Joseph Smith's statement on liberty of belief must also include the liberty to publicly express your beliefs. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

"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.

There's something different about a gay person saying they want to live their life in accordance with the principles of happiness, as the the little girl did, than your example of a young boy saying he wants to score with a bunch of women.

It's rather more like a black person getting up in a Southern Baptist church in the 40s and saying they believe in full racial equality. A provocative and one might even say "inappropriate" statement given the beliefs of the congregants, but the right statement to make.

[california boy]

What I am most surprised about this whole issue is how worked up so many members are about this 12 year old girl saying something that is not Mormon doctrine.  What do they think is going to happen.  Is the congregation all the sudden going to shift their belief on this issue because of a 12 year old's testimony?  You are giving this girl far too much credit for any power she might have over what her words are expressing.  Perhaps the outrage is because so many feel like the argument to not allow gay members to marry is so thin that a 12 year old could sway an entire congregation to toss that policy out>

In all seriousness, what do you think the outcome of her testimony would have been on a ward in Utah if the stake president had done nothing?  Or at the very minimum simply stood up and reaffirmed the church policy on gay marriage and then moved on.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What I am most surprised about this whole issue is how worked up so many members are about this 12 year old girl saying something that is not Mormon doctrine.  What do they think is going to happen.  Is the congregation all the sudden going to shift their belief on this issue because of a 12 year old's testimony?  You are giving this girl far too much credit for any power she might have over what her words are expressing.  Perhaps the outrage is because so many feel like the argument to not allow gay members to marry is so thin that a 12 year old could sway an entire congregation to toss that policy out>

In all seriousness, what do you think the outcome of her testimony would have been on a ward in Utah if the stake president had done nothing?  Or at the very minimum simply stood up and reaffirmed the church policy on gay marriage and then moved on.  

 

Personally, I don't think the outcome would have been of much consequence, but that is beside the point to me.   If someone attempts to teach that sin (as the church sees it) is acceptable to God over the pulpit, then whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them. 

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

In all seriousness, what do you think the outcome of her testimony would have been on a ward in Utah if the stake president had done nothing?  Or at the very minimum simply stood up and reaffirmed the church policy on gay marriage and then moved on.  

 

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Personally, I don't think the outcome would have been of much consequence, but that is beside the point to me.   If someone attempts to teach that sin (as the church sees it) is acceptable to God over the pulpit, then whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them. 

In the thread "Should Bishops turn the microphone off", I stated:  "It is the duty of priesthood holders (even including Deacons) to "watch over the church" (see D&C 20:42,54).  It was entirely appropriate for the Stake President to maintain control of the meeting by gently turning the mic off and meekly asking her to sit down."

If Savannah's social engineering statement had been left unchallenged, there would have been more drifting into the bland secularism that is plaguing our world today.   LDS Church will become another "run of the mill" organization.

3 Nephi 12:13

13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the salt of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.

[Jude2]

Just looked in on this, sorry there is just to much to read. 

 

So her parents helped her come out of the closet during fast and testimony meeting?? At the tender age of 13?  Sorry I don't by it, not even old enough to date, not old enough to have a boy hold her hand and give her a kiss, not old enough to know just how she would feel in the arms of a man. And they filmed it?  Something is very very wrong with this whole picture. 

 

". Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. ....but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle." 4 Nephi 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Jude2

[Gillebre]

I read the HuffPost article and there was a final paragraph that I wanted to highlight and comment on:

 

Quote

Heather hopes the Mormon Church is receptive to her daughter’s courageous message. “I want the Mormon Church to know that gay people are beautiful, they are just as good and whole as everyone else, and they deserve life long love,” she said. “Savannah wants the Church to know that she isn’t bad, that God loves her, and she is gay because she was born that way. ‘Tough love’ won’t take the gay away. Christ would want us all to just love.”

Heather is obviously the girl, Savannah's, mother. My gut feeling on this is that it's part of smoke and mirrors. In truth I have no real issue with most of what this mom is trying to communicate. Gay people are beautiful, and they are just as good and valuable as anyone else, and they do deserve to love and be loved. They aren't bad people, God does love them, and they could easily have been born that way. I don't think the Church disputes any of those points. We're all trying to find our own happiness and have total liberty as to how we do that. It hurts me in a way because these things don't feel genuine. I feel like sincerity is lacking because of how this was all done. It was a statement meant to draw attention to how, in her opinion, the Church doesn't think gay people are as good as other people, that they don't deserve to love or be loved, that her daughter is bad, and unloved by God. 

This is completely and utterly not true, and that this idea is becoming a prevailing assumption about both the Church itself and members of it is awful. I recognize that the interactions people have with Mormons can indeed color their thinking about how other Mormons must think or feel, but that's a truly false assumption. I have a co-worker who has a gay daughter, and when they lived in Texas they were told by their Bishop that the daughter was going to hell because she was gay, and that they were failures as parents, among a few other things. This interaction has so completely affected her opinion of the Church and members in both visible and subtle ways, and it would be so easy for feelings of bitterness and resentment to blossom.

Bitterness and resentment are Satan's tools to bind our minds and hearts in chains of suffering. The failures of people and the hurtful things they say and do are not fruits of the pure and true teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which, in part, come to us through the medium of His Church. The principles are true. God does love us no matter what, and will always reach out to us if we will try to listen to what He has to say. God cares about the choices we make because they affect us in ways that only He can truly see, and it's His love that puts Him in a position to correct us when our ideas about life are wrong. God wants us to receive all the happiness in life we can have, but sometimes the happiness we pursue, in His eyes, is not good enough for us. There's more we can have if we'd only defer to His judgment and wisdom. Can we ultimately try to put off what we think, feel, and want because we've learned to trust Him?

[Danzo]

12 hours 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.

I'm more inclined to believe the stake president was one of them. It would definitely be easier for him to do nothing. As happens all to often.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What I am most surprised about this whole issue is how worked up so many members are about this 12 year old girl saying something that is not Mormon doctrine.  What do they think is going to happen.  Is the congregation all the sudden going to shift their belief on this issue because of a 12 year old's testimony?

I don't think people are suddenly going to change their view, although clearly the mother and daughter hoped that would happen. But it's rather naive. That doesn't mean the behavior isn't deeply inappropriate, just as would talking about any of the other things people have brought up as parallels are. To turn the question around, if someone got up and was testifying of deeply racist positions do you think people in the audience would change their views? Probably not. Yet I bet you'd still find it inappropriate. And most people probably would think the person presiding should have done something about it.

So long as something clarifying was said afterwards I don't think it would have mattered too much. Although I'd suspect that by saying these things they've alienated themselves within the ward in a way that wouldn't have happened had she not gone up but merely let people know she was gay. I think there would have been a much better chance to get the understanding she craved via other means. And I'm sure the mother will now use that alienation to further justify dislike of the church and never look inward. That's how these things usually go. Hopefully it won't in this case.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Given that mind reading is impossible, Joseph Smith's statement on liberty of belief must also include the liberty to publicly express your beliefs. 

Given Joseph's actions towards apostates I think he felt that freedom was best exercised outside of the church with respect to certain topics.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

Well it's more complicated than that. It's becoming clear that epigenetics plays an important role based upon twin studies. So there's more options here than the broad category of mutations. As for your not seeing how that could affect sexual identity I'll confess I'm confused. It would seem you could only say that if sexual identity wasn't genetic. But I assume you don't believe that. So doesn't that logically entail that anything that affects the genes tied to that development would affect how sexual development happens? It would be more shocking if interference in genes or gene expression didn't affect sexual development. And of course there's tons of evidence in the animal kingdom of things that affect sexual development - especially pollutants but also intentional triggers that evolved. More significantly there's homosexuality among mammals including primates. That it happens with animals strongly suggests genetic factors and that it happens with primates, which are genetically very similar to us, suggest it would with us.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

No that's not even remotely close to what I said. I said this particular factor predicts male homosexuality 70% of the time. It says nothing about those without that factor. The factor is also an epigenetic not genetic factor. So it's controlling gene expression in some fashion.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No that's not even remotely close to what I said. I said this particular factor predicts male homosexuality 70% of the time. It says nothing about those without that factor. The factor is also an epigenetic not genetic factor. So it's controlling gene expression in some fashion.

Reference, please.

Additionally,  I just remind the learned gentleman of ... Simon Levay

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Given Joseph's actions towards apostates I think he felt that freedom was best exercised outside of the church with respect to certain topics.

I think that when the rubber hit the road his actions sometimes contradicted his stated principles

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 If someone attempts to teach that sin (as the church sees it) is acceptable to God over the pulpit, then whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them. 

CFR that "whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them." 
I heard many members say drinking decaf coffee is not a sin, and Bishops didn't stop them.  Honestly there is no need to defend local leaders, we all know they are not perfect.

45 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 More significantly there's homosexuality among mammals including primates.

Yes. I have a question for you. The American Psychological Association stated, "Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion."

Is that good for mental health?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

CFR that "whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them." 
I heard many members say drinking decaf coffee is not a sin, and Bishops didn't stop them.  Honestly there is no need to defend local leaders, we all know they are not perfect.

Yes. I have a question for you. The American Psychological Association stated, "Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion."

Is that good for mental health?

Saying from the pulpit that de-caf coffee is OK for Mormons is not right and should not be tolerated either. 

And it's my recollection that the APA is highly politicized on the matter of homosexuality. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No that's not even remotely close to what I said. I said this particular factor predicts male homosexuality 70% of the time. It says nothing about those without that factor. The factor is also an epigenetic not genetic factor. So it's controlling gene expression in some fashion.

So if I take a random sample from a random person, and this factor is present, you can predict homosexuality with 70 percent confidence?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think that when the rubber hit the road his actions sometimes contradicted his stated principles

Yet he forthrightly reported and taught what the Lord told him to say, even when it indicted him personally. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jude2]

Where's dad in all of this? 

[MormonVideoGame]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Saying from the pulpit that de-can coffee is OK for Mormons is not right and should not be tolerated. 

but the church leaders I know allow that. CFR that Bishops need to turn off the mic, what church manual says that? 

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And it's my recollection that the APA is highly politicized on the matter of homosexuality. 

Seriously? There is no need to quote the American Psychological Association to suspect that. Imagine your friends and family telling "your behavior is a serious sin", I don't think that is good for mental health.  

I don't know many homosexuals that decided to remain celebate for the rest of their lives, or marry someone of the opposite sex without ending up in divorce. It is just nearly impossible to accomplish. I suspect that 99% of homosexuals just can't do it.  

Edited June 17, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So if I take a random sample from a random person, and this factor is present, you can predict homosexuality with 70 percent confidence?

Again, not what I said.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

but the church leaders I know allow that. CFR that Bishops need to turn off the mic, what church manual says that? 

Seriously? There is no need to quote the American Psychological Association to suspect that. Imagine your friends and family telling "your behavior is a serious sin", I don't think that is good for mental health.  

I don't know many homosexuals that decided to remain celebate for the rest of their lives, or marry someone of the opposite sex without ending up in divorce. It is just nearly impossible to accomplish. I suspect that 99% of homosexuals just can't do it.  

I've never heard anyone declare from the pulpit in a Mormon meeting that decaf coffee is OK, let alone seen a Church leader allow it. I suspect you are exaggerating. 

The priesthood leader who presides at a meeting bears responsibility for the content of the meeting. CFR that turning off the mic  is unavailable to him as an option for fulfilling that duty. 

It is not the province of the APA to declare what is and is not sinful. 

Not everyone who has same-sex attraction is 100 percent homosexual. Some bi-sexual individuals have had fulfilling and lasting heterosexual marriages. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

If it's true, as someone here posted, that the mother in this incident brought in a group of her lgbtq friends to watch the show, it makes even better sense to me now that the priesthood leader through the rest of the meeting designated who would be bearing testimonies. It might have been a yet bigger circus had he not stepped in. 

I doubt we'll ever know the full backstory. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... I doubt we'll ever know the full backstory. 

Of course not.  I strongly suspect that "the full backstory" would not accord well with the agenda of those who attempted to orchestrate these events.