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

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Reference, please.

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Or he was incredibly naive about organization in the early period and learned it the hard way by Nauvoo.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Your argument is with the English language. Anti-gay doctrines fall firmly in the arena of homophobia. If you're not ashamed of the doctrines you shouldn't be afraid of the word homophobia.

Some people use the term to designate anything they think is in opposition to homosexual acceptance. Others, following more closely the etymology, use it only to mean irrational fear of homosexuality. You're privileging the first use but I suspect the second use is more common.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote.  A great deal about how this all pans out is in the hands of both parties.  The ward could do amazing things to help this young girl and her mother feel loved and accepted.  The church leaders don't really have to correct the child's dreams of getting married to someone she loves.  That is a long way off.  And even if she expressed that dream every time she went to church, I don't think it would change church policy or change the minds of anyone that faithfully believes that church leaders speak for God and are following God's will.

This could still have a happy ending.  But a lot of Christ like love has to follow.  I wonder if the ward is up for the challenge?  I'd like to think that they are.  Certainly other wards have risen to the challenge.  Maybe her church leaders should talk to that Mitch guy in Oakland that is the ward clerk, yet still declares that some day he may marry.  Now there is a ward that didn't fall apart over something like this.

[Glenn101]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When I was married in the temple my dad needed to get his recommend renewed in order to be present for it. He was a coffee drinker, but the bishop told him if he would drink decaf he could get the recommend.

Decaf coffee was nixed here in my part of the un-Utah world many years ago. Postum was the great resort for the many refugees from the coffee drinking world who were trying to more faithfully live the Word of Wisdom.

I personally believe that the Word of Wisdom has some "avoid those things" and "try to overcome those things" that go along with the great blessings that are promised those who work diligently to observe the spirit of that advice that has become a commandment. And maybe if we focused more on the blessings we would naturally walk closer to that spirit.

[Anijen]

For those who care what my opinion is (Bueller, Bueller, Bueller). 

If I were conducting or presiding over the meeting:

• I would not have shut off the mike.
• I would have let the girl completely finish.
• I would have gently corrected false doctrine.
• I would thank all those who bore their testimonies.
• I would speak to the girl and parents, in private, and discuss what a proper testimony is.
• I would speak with the girl parents with a great determination not to be condescending or discriminatory.
• The next Sunday or following, but before the next F&T meeting, I would or have a counselor instruct the congregation what a proper testimony is and what it contains. 
• I would either through the ward leaders or in sacrament make sure that Church policies are known, specifically about recording in the chapel.

There are a lot of testimonies that are travel logs, health issues, lectures, condemnations, etc. and all of these though not a testimony that correlate with how we have been instructed, they still can be uplifting and inspiring. I would still NOT shut-off the mike (because it happens quite often). If the girl, repeatedly came up and read her testimony, even the same one each time. I think I would probably still let her do it. I would get up each time, and with as much love and concern I could muster, I would correct any false doctrine I heard. But I still would allow her to bear her testimony (yes, each and every single time).

 Why, why would I keep allowing it? Because I love her. I love her parents. I love her family, and this church does not force any person, either to do something or compel them not to do something. (although I might have to correct false doctrine each time as well).

Edited June 17, 2017 by Anijen

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

No response yet by the author to Gelman's criticism, and no peer-reviewed studies replicating results.

As expected.

Way too early to claim anything from this.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

Thanks!

[cinepro]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

For those who care what my opinion is (Bueller, Bueller, Bueller). 

If I were conducting or presiding over the meeting:

• I would not have shut off the mike.
• I would have let the girl completely finish.
• I would have gently corrected false doctrine.
• I would thank all those who bore their testimonies.
• I would speak to the girl and parents, in private, and discuss what a proper testimony is.
• I would speak with the girl parents with a great determination not to be condescending or discriminatory.
• The next Sunday or following, but before the next F&T meeting, I would or have a counselor instruct the congregation what a proper testimony is and what it contains. 
• I would either through the ward leaders or in sacrament make sure that Church policies are known, specifically about recording in the chapel.

There are a lot of testimonies that are travel logs, health issues, lectures, condemnations, etc. and all of these though not a testimony that correlate with how we have been instructed, they still can be uplifting and inspiring. I would still NOT shut-off the mike (because it happens quite often). If the girl, repeatedly came up and read her testimony, even the same one each time. I think I would probably still let her do it. I would get up each time, and with as much love and concern I could muster, I would correct any false doctrine I heard. But I still would allow her to bear her testimony (yes, each and every single time).

 Why, why would I keep allowing it? Because I love her. I love her parents. I love her family, and this church does not force any person, either to do something or compel them not to do something. (although I might have to correct false doctrine each time as well).

To be clear:

- You don't know how long she was going to take, or what she was going to say.  What if she started to use profanity?  Would you shut the mic off then?  What if she said "And there are other things I disagree with the Church about....", would you shut the mic off then?  I'm sure everyone has a different point, but I can't fault any leader for their point being "I'm a 12-year-old lesbian and want to marry (a woman) someday and think God's happy with that."

- Which false doctrines would you have corrected, and what would you have said?  "Thanks Savannah, but just so everyone's clear, homosexuality is an abomination and if Savannah marries a woman she'll probably be ex'd, assuming she's still interested in being a member by that point."

- Savannah was the first to speak, so you would have just been thanking her.

- Savannah's parents know what a proper testimony is.  They worked on this (apparently) for months, and never told or asked the Bishop about it.   Her mom isn't interested in what you think a "proper" testimony is. 

- Savannah's mom already thinks you're condescending and discriminatory.  That's why she didn't tell you they had prepared a statement for Savannah to read and just had her blindside you.  If they cared what you thought at all they would have told you.

- The people who recorded the testimony know what the "policy" about recording is.  They knew what Savannah was doing.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Anijen said:

For those who care what my opinion is (Bueller, Bueller, Bueller). 

If I were conducting or presiding over the meeting:

• I would not have shut off the mike.
• I would have let the girl completely finish.
• I would have gently corrected false doctrine.
• I would thank all those who bore their testimonies.
• I would speak to the girl and parents, in private, and discuss what a proper testimony is.
• I would speak with the girl parents with a great determination not to be condescending or discriminatory.
• The next Sunday or following, but before the next F&T meeting, I would or have a counselor instruct the congregation what a proper testimony is and what it contains. 
• I would either through the ward leaders or in sacrament make sure that Church policies are known, specifically about recording in the chapel.

There are a lot of testimonies that are travel logs, health issues, lectures, condemnations, etc. and all of these though not a testimony that correlate with how we have been instructed, they still can be uplifting and inspiring. I would still NOT shut-off the mike (because it happens quite often). If the girl, repeatedly came up and read her testimony, even the same one each time. I think I would probably still let her do it. I would get up each time, and with as much love and concern I could muster, I would correct any false doctrine I heard. But I still would allow her to bear her testimony (yes, each and every single time).

 Why, why would I keep allowing it? Because I love her. I love her parents. I love her family, and this church does not force any person, either to do something or compel them not to do something. (although I might have to correct false doctrine each time as well).

Thanks for your "loving" post!! And if you had been there, I wonder how many members would want to "stay" in the LDS church, vs. leave. And just how many gay people that perhaps were contemplating ending their lives, may have changed their mind. Or the countless other things that were on the positive vs. negative side.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Tacenda

[cinepro]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Honestly, the most interesting thing about this is what people have to tell themselves Savannah said in order to convince themselves what she did was okay (and the church leaders were "bad").

"Oh, this poor little girl was just talking about love and tolerance and happiness and flowers and moonbeams and out of nowhere some nasty leader shut off the microphone and yelled at her!"

I could take 10 minutes and write a version of her talk that says almost the exact same thing and is totally appropriate to give in an LDS ward.  As I said before, her mom was either ignorant or stupid.  But I've heard enough about what happened leading up to it to be pretty sure it's just the latter (ignoring the fact that this is probably playing out exactly how they would have wanted, so it's also a certain kind of genius).

Edited June 17, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

No response yet by the author to Gelman's criticism, and no peer-reviewed studies replicating results.

As expected.

Way too early to claim anything from this.

And note I wasn't claiming otherwise although I think it strongly indicative. And of course the paper is so recent we shouldn't expect replication yet. But I certainly never portrayed it as a gay detector. Quite the opposite.

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, longview said:

I totally REJECT leftist attempts at intimidation by labelling as "phobic" any expressions of concern by conservatives.  Terms like homophobic or islamophobic are designed to shut down the debate and whiplash the woolyheaded onto the "reservation."

"Homophpbic" is a stupid coinage anyway. Homo-  as a combining form means man, not homosexual. So, homophobia, if anything, would mean fear of men. 

Furthermore, use of the word phobia presupposes irrationality. It is very debatable whether it is inherently irrational to disapprove of acting on one's homosexual tendencies. 

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for your "loving" post!! And if you had been there, I wonder how many members would want to "stay" in the LDS church, vs. leave. And just how many gay people that perhaps were contemplating ending their lives, may have changed their mind. Or the countless other things that were on the positive vs. negative side.

I so agree.  Thank you Anijen!  Love the love in your post.

[clarkgoble]

I confess I've only heard the decalf coffee thing in Utah. Never back east where I grew up, nor in the south nor in Alberta. And then in Utah in a pretty self-justifying fashion. I don't think it's a big enough deal that most care too much but someone claiming it over the pulpit might get consulted by the bishop. So it's kind of like tithing. No one cares what you think and don't care that much about what you do but would care a lot if you started saying insacrament you only had to pay 5%.

[Anijen]

Just now, cinepro said:

To be clear:

- You don't know how long she was going to take, or what she was going to say.  What if she started to use profanity?  Would you shut the mic off then?  What if she said "And there are other things I disagree with the Church about....", would you shut the mic off then?  I'm sure everyone has a different point, but I can't fault any leader for their point being "I'm a 12-year-old lesbian and want to marry (a woman) someday and think God's happy with that."

- Which false doctrines would you have corrected, and what would you have said?  "Thanks Savannah, but just so everyone's clear, homosexuality is an abomination and if Savannah marries a woman she'll probably be ex'd, assuming she's still interested in being a member by that point."

- Savannah was the first to speak, so you would have just been thanking her.

- Savannah's parents know what a proper testimony is.  They worked on this (apparently) for months, and never told or asked the Bishop about it.   Her mom isn't interested in what you think a "proper" testimony is. 

- Savannah's mom already thinks you're condescending and discriminatory.  That's why she didn't tell you they had prepared a statement for Savannah to read and just had her blindside you.  If they cared what you thought at all they would have told you.

- The people who recorded the testimony know what the "policy" about recording is.  They knew what Savannah was doing.

Hmm... Great scenarios cinepro. Then yes, I would have to change my thinking... That is why I like coming to this site. (see I am open-minded, I can change my thoughts).

• Profanity? Yes I would take action, shutting off the mike and asking her to step down would be appropriate. I have to remember there is a line. This still is a house of god.
• "...other things I disagree with the Church about." Probably not, depends on how it is delivered (no profanity I hope).
• "I'm a lesbian... and I think God's happy with that." Probably allow her to continue.
• Which false doctrines would you have corrected, and what would you have said?  Well, I'd correct all the major false doctrines that I recognized, i.e. if she said; "in the name of thy son." I of course would not correct a minor thing. A major false doctrine, I would probably say something like; "The Proclamation For The Family, addresses some of the issues sister____ has brought up and I would like to emphasis that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have said that marriage is between a man and a woman.
• "Thanks Savannah, but just so everyone's clear, homosexuality is an abomination and if Savannah marries a woman she'll probably be ex'd, assuming she's still interested in being a member by that point." How you put it, although more than likely true, is a bit harsh for me to use at sacrament (just my opinion).
• Savannah was the first to speak, so you would have just been thanking her. I meant at the end of the meeting.
• Savannah's parents know what a proper testimony is.  They worked on this (apparently) for months, and never told or asked the Bishop about it.   Her mom isn't interested in what you think a "proper" testimony is.  Well, if they "know" what a proper testimony is, then why did the parents allow it? Things like them working on it for such a long time, not caring about what the Bishop thinks, never asking about it, filming it, publishing it on YouTube, etc. are what I mentioned way back at the start of this thread. These are factors, (that tell me anyway), that they (most blame on parents here) had a different agenda than just a run-of-the-mill testimony. This was a planned way to either shame the church for their policies, or ridicule the church in some way, because they (child, mom, and dad) disagreed with the church. The begging question cinepro is; If I bar them from bearing their testimonies is that not also going against church doctrine? How long do I bar them from bearing their testimonies? What happens if they sincerely repent after the first time, what happens if they do not? I just couldn't tell. I do not have the answers to some of your questions. I am glad I am not in the Bishopric anymore, under this situation. 
• Savannah's mom already thinks you're condescending and discriminatory. True, but that does not give me the excuse to be such. I'm old a kinder way is to me the better way, even if an unkind way would make me feel better, or because I felt it was justified. It just isn't right (to me anyway).
• That's why she didn't tell you they had prepared a statement for Savannah to read and just had her blindside you.  If they cared what you thought at all they would have told you. I would give you the same answer as just above.
• The people who recorded the testimony know what the "policy" about recording is.  They knew what Savannah was doing. Yes, I would still talk to them about it. I have no illusions that me talking to anyone as such in these circumstances will be fruitful. People do what they desire to do. I would try to kindly correct.

But you [cinepro] are correct, there are things that I would change and somethings I would not. It is not either yes, or no, but many depends, maybes, and a whole lot of I don't know's.

[Anijen]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for your "loving" post!! And if you had been there, I wonder how many members would want to "stay" in the LDS church, vs. leave. And just how many gay people that perhaps were contemplating ending their lives, may have changed their mind. Or the countless other things that were on the positive vs. negative side.

Thank you. What a very nice thing to say. It least that is how I perceived your post. Kindness is one of the most important virtues to try to cultivate. I believe I would have to do a lot of "loving correction" and I would hope that my stamina to do so, outlasts their stamina to continue doing something inappropriate.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Who are you to declare that a 12-year-old boy expressing his belief in the principle of polygamy is any worse than a 12-year-old girl declaring that she wants to grow up and live in a lesbian marriage? You may disapprove, but so what? A lot of people disapprove of gay marriage. And a lot of people think polygamy is a sacred principle. Why does your personal bias get a pass while someone else's doesn't?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I've only heard the decalf coffee thing in Utah. Never back east where I grew up, nor in the south nor in Alberta. And then in Utah in a pretty self-justifying fashion. I don't think it's a big enough deal that most care too much but someone claiming it over the pulpit might get consulted by the bishop. So it's kind of like tithing. No one cares what you think and don't care that much about what you do but would care a lot if you started saying insacrament you only had to pay 5%.

Lifelong resident of Utah in the heart of Mormondom, and I've never seen anyone have the temerity to declare in an LDS meeting that coffee of any kind, decaf or not, is OK. 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, the most interesting thing about this is what people have to tell themselves Savannah said in order to convince themselves what she did was okay (and the church leaders were "bad").

"Oh, this poor little girl was just talking about love and tolerance and happiness and flowers and moonbeams and out of nowhere some nasty leader shut off the microphone and yelled at her!"

I could take 10 minutes and write a version of her talk that says almost the exact same thing and is totally appropriate to give in an LDS ward.  As I said before, her mom was either ignorant or stupid.  But I've heard enough about what happened leading up to it to be pretty sure it's just the latter (ignoring the fact that this is probably playing out exactly how they would have wanted, so it's also a certain kind of genius).

I don't think she is stupid, I would say foolish.

But I do think it is generally playing out as anticipated.  Her mom appears to be no stranger to the controversy according to her FB page.  I think they may be surprised the girl is getting presents from all over the world, but other than that I would have said it was quite predictable.

I think there is going to be more mainstream attention because of turning off the mic, but other than that the same even if she had been allowed to finish her exit narrative.****

****These concluding sentences make it clear it is an exit narrative, imo."

"I had dreams of going to the temple and getting married and was very sad when I found out that would never happen for me.

Today I choose to find my joy outside of my old dreams from when I was little. 

I have new dreams and I know my earthly parents and my Heavenly Parents love and accept me just the way I am."

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lifelong resident of Utah in the heart of Mormondom, and I've never seen anyone have the temerity to declare in an LDS meeting that coffee of any kind, decaf or not, is OK. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was over the pulpit. More just in regularly conversation in Provo. I've never heard anything remotely like that over the pulpit.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This could still have a happy ending.  But a lot of Christ like love has to follow.  I wonder if the ward is up for the challenge?  I'd like to think that they are.  Certainly other wards have risen to the challenge.  Maybe her church leaders should talk to that Mitch guy in Oakland that is the ward clerk, yet still declares that some day he may marry.  Now there is a ward that didn't fall apart over something like this.

By both sides I should add. I don't see any indication the mother was going into this ignorantly. When she talks about not letting her husband indoctrinate her other kids it doesn't exactly indicate much love for the church. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Homophpbic" is a stupid coinage anyway. Homo-  as a combining form means man, not homosexual. So, homophobia, if anything, would mean fear of men. 

In "homosexual" it means "same" as in homogenous.

"The genus that includes modern humans is called Homo. "Homo sapiens" are modern humans. Our ancestors had names like "Homo neanderthalensis" and "Homoerectus." Homo is a Latin word that means man, or human. When it is used as a prefix, as in "homosexual," it comes from the Greek word homos, meaning the same."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/homo

And thus it doesn't make sense as it either means fear of man or fear of the same...I agree it likely means the first as it is not a prefix in "homophobia", not sure exactly what type of phobia it would be categorized as now .I think about it as there are multiple (irrational) reasons one could have an actual phobia of homosexuals.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And note I wasn't claiming otherwise although I think it strongly indicative. And of course the paper is so recent we shouldn't expect replication yet. But I certainly never portrayed it as a gay detector. Quite the opposite.

The paper's author has had two years so far.

Not exactly the stuff to engender enthusiastic embracement.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

As I said before, her mom was either ignorant or stupid.

I don't think those are our only choices.