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

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, DemonsAway said:

Great comment, a point I've been arguing for years.

Are you kidding me? This is one of the most valuable services the gay community can provide is adopting children. You ask a child in an orphanage if they'd rather stay in the orphanage or go to loving gay parents and see what they choose. Unless they're highly indoctrinated in some religion I'm willing to bet they'd choose they gay couple every time. And yes gay parents are just as capable of providing a child with a happy and healthy life as any straight couple.

Oh big rep here.    I have seen loving parents in adoption...if the parents love eachother..there is so much they learn about life and love..in any marriage. 

[Jeanne]

My gay stepson lost his partner of 7 years to suicide.  My biggest hope that someday..he will show up at my door with a grandchild to love and I would be so proud to share this last name..and a posterity to my husband.  This has been so hard.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Jeanne

[juliann]

For heaven's sake, CA.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by juliann

[USU78]

FAIR chimes in:

 https://www.fairmormon.org/blog

[Garden Girl]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So  tell me why it matters to you when someone drags God into it.   Let me understand 25 pages of rebuke for her stating her beliefs about how she feels about God.  

Thank you for the well wishes.  And the same back to you.  

CB:

The reason is as I stated earlier... I don't believe God "engineered" homosexuality, nor "made" someone as a homosexual... God created man in his own image, male and female created he them...  and gave them the commandment to go forward and be fruitful and replenish the earth, and they were able to obey because they had been physically created to do so... together.  This is the Lord's way... the natural law that we follow...  For someone to claim that God "made" them homosexual, or "engineered" homosexuality is assigning something to God that is contrary to God's creation and purpose for his children.  They can say how they believe God loves them, etc etc., but I don't believe it is correct to bring God into their homosexuality.   

That said, I have too many L/G friends to not see the good in them, and feel compassion for their hopes and goals... so while I can't condone physical homosexual relationships, I can try to treat LGBT with dignity and fairness.  When I retired from San Fran St Univ, my best fiend... a gay man who was our office/library manager... gave me a sit down dinner in his home for 20 people of my choice.  My choice included 3 straight employees, with spouses... the other 14 invitees were gay men and women from various library depts,  We had the best time... my friend has a lovely home, and is famous for being a gourmet cook... and he fixed a wonderful dinner.. I cherish the memory.  

GG

Edited June 18, 2017 by Garden Girl

[carbon dioxide]

21 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

CB:

The reason is as I stated earlier... I don't believe God "engineered" homosexuality, nor "made" someone as a homosexual... God created man in his own image, male and female created he them...  and gave them the commandment to go forward and be fruitful and replenish the earth, and they were able to obey because they had been physically created to do so... together.  This is the Lord's way... the natural law that we follow...  For someone to claim that God "made" them homosexual, or "engineered" homosexuality is assigning something to God that is contrary to God's creation and purpose for his children.  They can say how they believe God loves them, etc etc., but I don't believe it is correct to bring God into their homosexuality.  

I agree.  We give God too much blame on our individual imperfections.  My oldest son does not have good eyesight so he has to wear glasses. I hardly think God went out of his way to ensure that he would be born with poor eyesight.  My other son has ADHD.  Once again I do not believe God went out of his way to cause his brain to develop in a certain way so that that life for him and us would be more difficult.  We live in a broken world where bodies don't develop perfectly.   I don't say to my oldest son "Sorry but God gave you that poor eyesight and you are made exactly how God wanted you so you should not wear glasses.  Learn to deal with your poor eyesight."  Rather I say to my son.  "You unfortunately inherited some bad genes from your parents.  We just have deal with those realities and do our best with what we have.  Lets go get some prescription eyeglasses so you can see better."

Whether one is born gay or not, whether it is genetic or not really is not relevant.  The scriptures tell us that we need to put off our natural tendencies and become like Christ.  For many, this is a hard thing to do because being like Christ can be very unnatural to many of us.  For the gay person, that might mean to sacrifice and not get married in mortality.  For my ADHD son, that might mean he has to work harder in school.  He will have to control his impulses and bad behavior.  I can't say to him "God made you perfect so just accept your ADHD and do what you want."  That would be horrible for him because untreated ADHD people tend to lag behind school, use drugs more, more sexually active, more likely to have trouble with the law, ect.  If  I want to see my son succeed, we have to find ways to help him with his ADHD which means going against the grain of what is natural for him and finding what he is really good at and develop it.  Too many want to just let people do what they want because they are born that way but that can lead to spiritual death.  Overcome the natural man, not celebrate and magnify it.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The one presiding over a meeting has supervision over the content of that meeting. In theory there are a number of means at his disposal for accomplishing that, of which turning off the microphone is but one. 

I don't remember if this has been posted yet or not...

"Occasionally something unexpected may occur during the meeting that the presiding officer feels a need to clarify. In this situation, he should make any clarification that is needed, being careful not to cause embarrassment...

Orienting Participants. Members of the bishopric orient sacrament meeting participants. They review the purposes of sacrament meeting and explain that all talks and music should be in harmony with the sacred nature of the sacrament.

When inviting members to speak, a member of the bishopric clearly explains the subject and the length of time the person should speak. He counsels speakers to teach the doctrines of the gospel, relate faith-promoting experiences, bear witness of divinely revealed truths, and use the scriptures (see D&C 42:12; 52:9). Speakers should teach in a spirit of love after prayerful preparation. They should not speak on subjects that are speculative, controversial, or out of harmony with Church doctrine....

After the sacrament, the bishopric member who is conducting the meeting bears a brief testimony. He then invites members to bear heartfelt testimonies and to relate faith-promoting experiences. The bishopric encourages members to keep their testimonies brief so more people may have the opportunity to participate."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng&_r=1#18.2.2

It is possible there is more detail in Handbook 1 over conducting meetings.

 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Gray... No, I don't agree that God engineered homosexuality...  your example is generalizing... not all gay couples are well situated to care for children.  I lived in San Fran for over 12 years and worked in an environment that was probably 90% LGBT... having many such friends.  I know how "well situated" gay couples are... and many are not suited to adopt... just like not all heteros are suited for adoption for reasons not just how well situated they are...  

And how do you know that the children were "abandoned."  Do you know the heartache and confusion it is for a young girl or woman to give up a child for adoption?

GG

Are you saying no gay couples are well situated to caring for children, and no straight people abandon their children?

Of course God engineered homosexuality. Who else woyld have done it? As with all talk of God's action, I am speaking metaphorically of course

[Gray]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No he didn't.  The fall engineered homosexuality along with all other mortal weaknesses.
There is nothing eternal in homosexual relationships.

What a joke.

Perhaps he created homosexuality to try the compassion of the saints. Let us not fail the test.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you saying no gay couples are well situated to caring for children, and no straight people abandon their children

Do you really think GG holds such an extreme position?

[Gray]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It doesn't have a single meaning nor has it removed the connotations of the former denotation. You could easily pick a different word with less baggage.

There's also a strong circularity to your use. The word means this clearly means that in very recent years it's come to be used in this way and therefore people shouldn't complain. That completely avoids the question of the connotations of the word as if they don't matter. In the same way I could say by plain English usage religious intolerance applies to anyone who doesn't accept religious belief that's been there for thousands of years. Further that word usage would have far more history than the one you bring up.

I say this not because I think the term is inappropriate. Merely that I think you should simultaneously expect a certain reaction. Indeed I rather suspect you knew the reaction which is why you chose that word rather than a semantically equivalent term.

It's the only term Iknow of that conveys the notion of prejudice against gay folks

[Calm]

Just now, Gray said:

It's the only term Iknow of that conveys the notion of prejudice against gay folks

Why not just use "gay prejudice"?  It has only two more letters to type?

[Garden Girl]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you saying no gay couples are well situated to caring for children, and no straight people abandon their children?

Of course God engineered homosexuality. Who else woyld have done it? As with all talk of God's action, I am speaking metaphorically of course

C'mon Gray... read my posts if you are going to respond... I did not say no gay couples are well situated to care for children, nor did I say no straight people abandon their children... I refuse to repeat myself here because I can't believe you would seriously ask this question based on my post, and that goes for my post on God not "engineering" homosexuality...

GG

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Garden Girl said:

CB:

The reason is as I stated earlier... I don't believe God "engineered" homosexuality, nor "made" someone as a homosexual... God created man in his own image, male and female created he them...  and gave them the commandment to go forward and be fruitful and replenish the earth, and they were able to obey because they had been physically created to do so... together.  This is the Lord's way... the natural law that we follow...  For someone to claim that God "made" them homosexual, or "engineered" homosexuality is assigning something to God that is contrary to God's creation and purpose for his children.  They can say how they believe God loves them, etc etc., but I don't believe it is correct to bring God into their homosexuality.   

That said, I have too many L/G friends to not see the good in them, and feel compassion for their hopes and goals... so while I can't condone physical homosexual relationships, I can try to treat LGBT with dignity and fairness.  When I retired from San Fran St Univ, my best fiend... a gay man who was our office/library manager... gave me a sit down dinner in his home for 20 people of my choice.  My choice included 3 straight employees, with spouses... the other 14 invitees were gay men and women from various library depts,  We had the best time... my friend has a lovely home, and is famous for being a gourmet cook... and he fixed a wonderful dinner.. I cherish the memory.  

GG

I respect your view.  I  want to hear your point of view.  It is different than mine, but I certainly am not going to get upset with the way you drag God into your personal beliefs.  I don't even care that you are condemning me because I am gay and God could not possibly have had any part to play in that.  I don't care that you think anything other than a relationship between a man and a woman is the only way God wants it.  It is your perspective.  You should be given a voice to express that belief.  The fact that i don't share that belief is irrelevant.  I can't take that belief away from you.  Nor should I.

So why this desire to control this young girl for expressing her spiritual feelings about God just because she is gay.  Why does it matter to you that she has a relationship with God different than yours.  Why can't she have different belief than yours?  Why should that offend you?  It is not your belief, it is hers.  She should not have a voice?  You think you should be offended by her beliefs and hopes and dreams? Does the church have a right to control her hopes and dreams of finding a companion and get married?  The church may very well have the power to shut her mike off.  They have the power to kick her out of their church.  But they don't have the power to control her own choices and her own belief about God.  If you are offended by that, then you really have some issues you need to work through.

Less than 1% of the people in the world share your religious beliefs.  Are you offended that they drag God into their religious beliefs as well?  Seriously, I think you need to re evaluate this thing.

This isn't about who has the most gay friends.

[Calm]

"the way you drag God"

Yeah, that's not loaded language.

Teaching people the consequences of their choices and then allowing them to choose is not "controlling".

Neither is wanting to have three hours a week in a building set aside for faithful worship.

Is insisting the girl should be allowed to speak without being shut down at a meeting meant to teach faithful doctrine and beliefs attempting to control the Church?

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

"the way you drag God"

Yeah, that's not loaded language.

This is the exact quote from GG  Seep previous page posting.

Quote

CB... It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it... No, the whole Mormon Church is not going to collapse because one 12 year old decides to get up in F&T meeting with an agenda and use the pulpit to "share" what believing members consider false doctrine... I just consider her actions inappropriate.  

If it is loaded language, you will have to bring it up with her.  And it was exactly what I was questioning.  

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is the exact quote from GG  Seep previous page posting.

If it is loaded language, you will have to bring it up with her.  And it was exactly what I was questioning.  

 

My apologies for attributing it to you, lost track of conversation.  Will have to go back and read GG's context to see if she used it in the same fashion.

There was certainly no sense to me of 'questioning' in your comments to GG on that usage.  

add-on:  GG would need to specify who she is talking about before I can agree or disagree with her on the use of "drag".  I don't know if she wants to take the time especially since I am too lazy to backtrack the conversation further.  I disagree with her if she is referring specifically to the girl's spiritual beliefs in and of themselves, but I get the impression she is more talking about usurping the role of a worship service for one's own activism and if so, I agree with her on that usage.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

My apologies for attributing it to you, lost track of conversation.  Will have to go back and read GG's context to see if she used it in the same fashion.

There was certainly no sense of 'question' in your comments to me in that regard.

add-on:  GG would need to specify who she is talking about before I can agree or disagree with her on the use of "drag".  I don't know if she wants to take the time especially since I am too lazy to backtrack the conversation further.  I disagree with her if she is referring specifically to the girl's spiritual beliefs in and of themselves, but I get the impression she is more talking about usurping the role of a worship service for one's own activism and if so, I agree with her on that usage.

Thanks Calm.  She was talking about the Beehive's testimony and her dragging God into her beliefs about being gay.  It is a couple of posts up from that.

You do an amazing job of trying to keep things on an even keel.  We all appreciate that.  No apology necessary.

Edited June 19, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks Calm.  She was talking about the Beehive's testimony and her dragging God into her beliefs about being gay.  It is a couple of posts up from that.

I think I will let GG tell me what she was doing if she cares to.

While I don't believe it is intentional, I also don't believe you are accurately representing many positions you are challenging.  And in general I prefer to let people speak for themselves though that may seem strange given how often I step in and tell people I think they are misreading someone and then present what I think is their position.  I try to remember to always present that as my interpretation rather than what they actually believe though and request correction when wrong.  I think that is different than writing one's interpretation/paraphrase as a statement of their position.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[Garden Girl]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I respect your view.  I  want to hear your point of view.  It is different than mine, but I certainly am not going to get upset with the way you drag God into your personal beliefs.  I don't even care that you are condemning me because I am gay and God could not possibly have had any part to play in that.  I don't care that you think anything other than a relationship between a man and a woman is the only way God wants it.  It is your perspective.  You should be given a voice to express that belief.  The fact that i don't share that belief is irrelevant.  I can't take that belief away from you.  Nor should I.

So why this desire to control this young girl for expressing her spiritual feelings about God just because she is gay.  Why does it matter to you that she has a relationship with God different than yours.  Why can't she have different belief than yours?  Why should that offend you?  It is not your belief, it is hers.  She should not have a voice?  You think you should be offended by her beliefs and hopes and dreams? Does the church have a right to control her hopes and dreams of finding a companion and get married?  The church may very well have the power to shut her mike off.  They have the power to kick her out of their church.  But they don't have the power to control her own choices and her own belief about God.  If you are offended by that, then you really have some issues you need to work through.

Less than 1% of the people in the world share your religious beliefs.  Are you offended that they drag God into their religious beliefs as well?  Seriously, I think you need to re evaluate this thing.

This isn't about who has the most gay friends.

CB... Sigh...

Yes, we have a different view... I had hoped my tone and posted expressions of my view conveyed that though we do have differences, I wanted you to understand that I felt you have just as much right to your view.  Did I condemn you... or the 12 year old... for being gay?  No.  I did say that I did not believe God had anything to do with "making" individuals gay, but that I felt something happens in the physiological development of cells, genes, chromosomes etc that impacts that.  And that God did not purposely create people to be at odds with his purposes for his children, the main one being creation of life... made possible by the way he physically created male and female. "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1st Cor 11:11).   I said I know God is fair and just and takes all things into consideration when he judges us... and our hearts.

Did I express a desire to control the 12 year old?... No. She's welcome to her own views... What makes you think I was offended or that she shouldn't have a voice to express her views?  My objection was that she chose to do so with a prepared talk which she decided to deliver from the pulpit at a Sunday F&T meeting, while being filmed, and which contained views contrary to Church teachings... IMO this was not simply expressing her views... it was grandstanding for effect.  Otherwise, why the camera... why the prepared talk?   What makes you think the Church is trying to control her hopes and dreams?  Or her choices?  The Church has well established doctrines in regard to marriage, sexual relationships, etc that apply to all members, including me.  

All members are free to accept and follow these doctrines, or reject them if they so choose.  It is entirely up to us.  It's called agency... I do understand completely, CB, that choices are difficult, and painful, for the members who are gay and believe in the doctrines of the gospel.   Yes they limit me as well as all single members... I've been widowed for 19 years, starting when I was a very young 58... I had to walk away from wonderful gentleman because he was a confirmed bachelor and I couldn't be the woman he wanted... and I wouldn't break my covenants... it was a choice painful to make.

From your post, I can see you are reading things into mine that are not true nor did I intend.   I was sorry to see your comment that if I was offended that I really had some issues I needed to work through...  I was not offended, and am sorry if you think I was... And, I shared an experience I had with gay friends... not trying to show how many gay friends I have...

GG

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you really think GG holds such an extreme position?

She seemed to object to me saying that gay couples are well situated for caring for children and that straight people do abandon their children. I'll let GG clarify her views.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why not just use "gay prejudice"?  It has only two more letters to type?

I think that would be anti-gay prejudice. Seems a bit awkward. Why say prejudice against other races when racism is the actual term?

 I don't think I'm supposed to give it a name at all here - that seems to be interpreted as name-calling.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

C'mon Gray... read my posts if you are going to respond... I did not say no gay couples are well situated to care for children, nor did I say no straight people abandon their children... I refuse to repeat myself here because I can't believe you would seriously ask this question based on my post, and that goes for my post on God not "engineering" homosexuality...

GG

I think we're maybe talking past each other. Did I say all gay couples are ready to take care of kids? Did I say all straight people who give their children up abandon them?

[PeterPear]

I haven't read the comments in all 27 tabs, but this was an obvious set up.

A phone camera in a lowered cowering position filming the pulpit as the young lady stood. A prepared written speech, which she stumbled while reading (not a testimony but a declaration).

The adult(s) hiding behind this young girl, that is using this young girl for an agenda, allowing or likely knowing she would be asked to stop, embarrassing her, planned this, is described thusly:

42 And whosoever shall ^aoffend one of these littleones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

It's the same Evil Spirit, which influenced the wicked men who sought to tempt the Lord:

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 THIS THEY SAID, TEMPTING HIM, THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO ACCUSE HIM.

This young lady was used

Edited June 19, 2017 by PeterPear

[Garden Girl]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My apologies for attributing it to you, lost track of conversation.  Will have to go back and read GG's context to see if she used it in the same fashion.

There was certainly no sense to me of 'questioning' in your comments to GG on that usage.  

add-on:  GG would need to specify who she is talking about before I can agree or disagree with her on the use of "drag".  I don't know if she wants to take the time especially since I am too lazy to backtrack the conversation further.  I disagree with her if she is referring specifically to the girl's spiritual beliefs in and of themselves, but I get the impression she is more talking about usurping the role of a worship service for one's own activism and if so, I agree with her on that usage.

Hello Calm...

I did say "It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it." (Homosexuality).   I was speaking generally about gays who say that God created them that way...  It is, however, what the girl said.  I opined that God didn't have anything to do with it... that IMO homosexuality was a result of something happening physiologically involving cells, genes, chromosomes. etc during development that impacted a person's sexual orientation.  I tried to convey that IMO God does not create anyone contrary to his purposes for his children.  

GG