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

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who is Peter Labarbera?  Just curious.

Looking at the articles on the site, not surprised by his opinion.

Peter LaBarbera is an American social conservative activist and the president of the anti-gay organization Americans for Truth about Homosexuality . wikipedia.org

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's an excerpt from a rather aggressive counter response to this whole fiasco in an article by Peter LaBarbera, Lifesite News:

"Gay activists ‘sexualize and exploit’ young girl after ‘coming out’ as lesbian in Mormon church service"

“So here we have a prepared speech, a carefully thought-out exploitation of a sacred religious meeting for selfish reasons in order to persuade the unwitting captive audience (they didn't come to church to hear that kind of thing) toward an opposing worldview, all about something that everyone else keeps very private, all with the encouragement of her parents,”

“Does this young, physically undeveloped girl know anything about human sexuality or the sex act and what it is for? Does she know anything about being a wife and mother? What gender roles and attitudes toward marriage and motherhood have been modeled?” she notes. “She is obviously a precocious, impertinent, presumptuous, and curious adolescent. Why are her mother and father, and why is everyone else, so eager to sexualize and exploit this vulnerable young girl in this way?” 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-sexualize-and-exploit-young-girl-after-coming-out-as-lesbian

Never mind  ...  next post clarified.  Thnx!

Edited June 21, 2017 by USU78

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Who is Peter Labarbera?  Just curious.

Looking at the articles on the site, not surprised by his opinion.

It was pretty extreme in the opposite direction. From the article:

"The Mormon Church has been softening its opposition to homosexuality in recent years, under pressure from pro-“gay” Mormon groups.
“There won’t be an official [LDS] response. They won’t say a word about it,” Stephen Graham told LifeSiteNews. “Their attitude seems to be: ‘Let’s not say anything about it, and maybe it will go away.’”

The Church has been saying plenty and enough against the subject already. There's no need to bring anymore attention to this incident that should never have happened in the first place. It's possible the Church doesn't say anything because they don't want to add to the exploitation that this innocent young girl is already getting. The local authorities already sufficiently handled it.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's an excerpt from a rather aggressive counter response to this whole fiasco in an article by Peter LaBarbera, Lifesite News:

"Gay activists ‘sexualize and exploit’ young girl after ‘coming out’ as lesbian in Mormon church service"

“So here we have a prepared speech, a carefully thought-out exploitation of a sacred religious meeting for selfish reasons in order to persuade the unwitting captive audience (they didn't come to church to hear that kind of thing) toward an opposing worldview, all about something that everyone else keeps very private, all with the encouragement of her parents,”

“Does this young, physically undeveloped girl know anything about human sexuality or the sex act and what it is for? Does she know anything about being a wife and mother? What gender roles and attitudes toward marriage and motherhood have been modeled?” she notes. “She is obviously a precocious, impertinent, presumptuous, and curious adolescent. Why are her mother and father, and why is everyone else, so eager to sexualize and exploit this vulnerable young girl in this way?” 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-sexualize-and-exploit-young-girl-after-coming-out-as-lesbian

I find that article very unfair. I don't like what happened in the F&T meeting, but I find this article unfair and misrepresentative. Seriously, the article sickens me. The people sexualizing are the author and the ones he quoted. I still feel like with the videoing etc that she was used, but this article is using her as well.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Taking away literal communication between God and man negates the need for repentance.

Does it? I still feel the need, even without literal two-way communication.

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If there is no deity send down laws to follow, there are no laws that can be broken, no forgiveness that needs to be sought, no need for baptism or the sacrament, no need for a Christ.

Commandments still exist. They're like an operating manual for life.

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If God didn't speak in holy writ, the words of holy writ are nothing more than good suggestions.  Breaking a commandment is of no significance, nor is breaking a covenant made in God's name.

 

Imagine, spiritual advice having to stand on its own merits, instead of appealing to an unquestionable authority to ram it through one's consciousness.

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In order for ANY of the gospel to be of any significance, God has to literally communicate his will to his children.  Otherwise the entirety of the gospel is nothing more than playacting.
It is the very definition of denying the power of God.

The principles of righteousness exist, whether or not any extra-earthly being is beaming them into the brains of prophets. Isn't that so? Within Mormon doctrine, God doesn't invent the rules. The rules exist outside of God. So if you can sort of tune your spiritual radio just right you can come to understand these rules. God doesn't speak, but we hear. If you listen to pink noise long enough, sometimes you can hear music that isn't there. That doesn't make the music less beautiful.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Did you ever think about looking into Christian Science? It seems what you've created for yourself is a kind of LDS/Christian Science hybrid religion. I'm being quite serious when I say it very well could be that you'll find much validation for your approach in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. I'm hoping you'll look into Christian Science a bit (if you haven't already done so) and let me know what you think. In Eddy's version of Christian theology, there is no need for a bleeding, suffering and dying Savior -- no atonement necessary.

I know almost nothing about CS, other than they don't see doctors, which would be a deal breaker to me. But it would be fun to check it out.

My beliefs are very similar to those you find among progressive Jews, Christians and Muslims. The difference is I come from an LDS background so I'm thinking about the BOM, where they're thinking about the Torah or the NT or the Quran.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

Those seem like good fundamentals to me!  For what it's worth:  I'm really glad you are in the Church.

Thanks, that really means a lot. Internet hug!

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

I find that article very unfair. I don't like what happened in the F&T meeting, but I find this article unfair and misrepresentative. Seriously, the article sickens me. The people sexualizing are the author and the ones he quoted. I still feel like with the videoing etc that she was used, but this article is using her as well.

 

I guarantee if she had talked about getting married (as a heterosexual) and having kids someday, the author wouldn't have found anything "sexualized" about it.

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know almost nothing about CS, other than they don't see doctors, which would be a deal breaker to me. But it would be fun to check it out.

My beliefs are very similar to those you find among progressive Jews, Christians and Muslims. The difference is I come from an LDS background so I'm thinking about the BOM, where they're thinking about the Torah or the NT or the Quran.

Please do check out Christian Science (you could start out by reading Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures) I have a hunch you'll find it's right up your alley. 

A friendly question: Be honest. If it turns out there really were Nephites in America and that the resurrected Jesus Christ did indeed minister to them, will you be disappointed and/or feel humiliated? 

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Please do check out Christian Science (you could start out by reading Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures) I have a hunch you'll find it's right up your alley. 

 

Sure, why not?

 

42 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A friendly question: Be honest. If it turns out there really were Nephites in America and that the resurrected Jesus Christ did indeed minister to them, will you be disappointed and/or feel humiliated? 

I would be surprised. Hard to say how I'd feel beyond that.  At present I don't think it's important to believe or disbelieve in the historicity of such things, so it's not like I have anything riding on it NOT being historical.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I find that article very unfair. I don't like what happened in the F&T meeting, but I find this article unfair and misrepresentative. Seriously, the article sickens me. The people sexualizing are the author and the ones he quoted. I still feel like with the videoing etc that she was used, but this article is using her as well.

 

Thank you Rain, after watching the interview with Savannah and her mother and getting the full story, I see how stupid what this author and others are saying. ETA: I'm not too sure about the video'g. Still on the fence. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I find that article very unfair. I don't like what happened in the F&T meeting, but I find this article unfair and misrepresentative. Seriously, the article sickens me. The people sexualizing are the author and the ones he quoted. I still feel like with the videoing etc that she was used, but this article is using her as well.

 

I assume the person is not LDS, but considering what we teach and show kids from their first conscious moment about family and often marriage as well and in church marriage in the temple, I don't find her comments inappropriate for her age.  I will be open and say it is a bit shocking to me to hear 'I am a lesbian' from a 12 year old, but that is likely my age showing.  We hadn't in the not so distant past needed to have a label for what kids imagined their teen and adult lives were going to be like, because what they were hearing was pretty much the same, 'boy meets girl, etc'.  Now there are more stories kids are told and imagine for themselves, so they are going to want to use labels as much as anyone else.

Kids wanting to have marriages, homes, and families like their parents is not sexualizing.  Nor is talking about dating when 12.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume the person is not LDS, but considering what we teach and show kids from their first conscious moment about family and often marriage as well and in church marriage in the temple, I don't find her comments inappropriate for her age.  I will be open and say it is a bit shocking to me to hear 'I am a lesbian' from a 12 year old, but that is likely my age showing.  We hadn't in the not so distant past needed to have a label for what kids imagined their teen and adult lives were going to be like, because what they were hearing was pretty much the same, 'boy meets girl, etc'.  Now there are more stories kids are told and imagine for themselves, so they are going to want to use labels as much as anyone else.

Kids wanting to have marriages, homes, and families like their parents is not sexualizing.  Nor is talking about dating when 12.

Yes. I have heard the family thing from my daughter for years. When my brother got married in the St Louis temple when my daughter was 3 she was actually rather irritated that she couldn't go in the temple and get married to her daddy. Nothing at all sexual to it. 

It does bother me how sexualized children are in so many places. It bothers me when I hear of 13 year olds who are pregnant or 6th graders conspiring to have sex in a classroom and I wonder just how we could get to this point, but from what I have seen from this girl, there is nothing sexual in the matter. 

 

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes. I have heard the family thing from my daughter for years. When my brother got married in the St Louis temple when my daughter was 3 she was actually rather irritated that she couldn't go in the temple and get married to her daddy. Nothing at all sexual to it. 

It does bother me how sexualized children are in so many places. It bothers me when I hear of 13 year olds who are pregnant or 6th graders conspiring to have sex in a classroom and I wonder just how we could get to this point, but from what I have seen from this girl, there is nothing sexual in the matter. 

There's an old saying in the military:  "If you say you are, you did."

Just sayin'.

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There's an old saying in the military:  "If you say you are, you did."

Just sayin'.

I don't know what you are saying. Would you explain that to me please?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I don't know what you are saying. Would you explain that to me please?

The issue is how does a 12-year-old go about "knowing" she is homosexually inclined.  What is the process by which this happens?  Are we simply to accept what may well be self-congratulatory or self-aggrandizing or self-seeking pronouncements uncritically?  Especially where the whole thing is so politicized?

And how can we not suspect the hand of the tweener's elders, one way or another, moving the whole nasty business towards a desired outcome?

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The issue is how does a 12-year-old go about "knowing" she is homosexually inclined.  What is the process by which this happens?  Are we simply to accept what may well be self-congratulatory or self-aggrandizing or self-seeking pronouncements uncritically?  Especially where the whole thing is so politicized?

And how can we not suspect the hand of the tweener's elders, one way or another, moving the whole nasty business towards a desired outcome?

But what does that have to do with my post that you quoted?

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I have pointed out before, the statement was made by a General Authority Seventy (he has since been given emeritus status) and sustained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who was also involved in the conversation. It was and is published on an official Church venue (LDS Newsroom) that is the go-to source for outside news media wishing to know the position of the Church on same-sex attraction and other issues. Furthermore, the same position was reflected on the Mormons and Gays website. That website has since been revamped, so I don't know if it's still there or not. But even if it isn't, the Wickman-Oaks interview is still up on LDS Newsroom.

Now you can be dismissive of what they said and try to rationalize it away, but given the persons and the venue, and given the fact that there has been nothing whatsoever in any official Church discourse to contradict them, you have to be concerned about looking foolish in doing so.

This has happened time and time again throughout the history of the church.  An apostle or even the prophet himself says something that is his opinion.  That opinion gets printed somewhere, and faithful members who believe that general authorities speak for God embrace the  opinion but now, attribute that opinion to God Himself.  The statement gets picked up by another publication which only gives credibility to the the theory expressed by the general authority.  All the sudden people are embracing that idea and no longer call it an opinion but now it is a revelation from God.  Anyone who doesn't consider it as such is now just being a critic of the church and not a faithful member willing to follow the prophet.  

It seems so easy to make that jump between a statement from someone in authority in the church to become a revelation from God.  Sadly, this kind of logic has caused a lot of bitterness and grief in the church.  Yet it continues.  The church is doomed to continue this destructive pattern as long as members put general authorities on a pedestal and take every statement they make as a revelation from God.  This in spite of the long sad history the church has for doing this exact thing in the past.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

The issue is how does a 12-year-old go about "knowing" she is homosexually inclined.  What is the process by which this happens?  Are we simply to accept what may well be self-congratulatory or self-aggrandizing or self-seeking pronouncements uncritically?  Especially where the whole thing is so politicized?

And how can we not suspect the hand of the tweener's elders, one way or another, moving the whole nasty business towards a desired outcome?

I think you perfectly made your point.  How can you know how this girl feels.  There are many that know they are different from those of the same gender at a very early age.  I was a deacon when I figured out that I was not like the other boys.  I spent the next 20 years trying to feel like "I was suppose to".  It never happened.  My tween elders, my early 20's elders were pushing a whole nasty bit  of advice towards a desired outcome that they claimed came from God Himself.  Yet that kid who at about that same age when I first realized I was gay, never changed.  You are speaking from a place with no knowledge or experience on this issue.  

[Jane_Doe]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you perfectly made your point.  How can you know how this girl feels.  There are many that know they are different from those of the same gender at a very early age.  I was a deacon when I figured out that I was not like the other boys.  I spent the next 20 years trying to feel like "I was suppose to".  It never happened.  My tween elders, my early 20's elders were pushing a whole nasty bit  of advice towards a desired outcome that they claimed came from God Himself.  Yet that kid who at about that same age when I first realized I was gay, never changed.  You are speaking from a place with no knowledge or experience on this issue.  

Conversely though: I do know people who've had a attraction to the same sex when they were tweens and then experience heterosexual attraction later in life.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Conversely though: I do know people who've had a attraction to the same sex when they were tweens and then experience heterosexual attraction later in life.   

Careful: ascendant totalising narratives don't respond well to challenge ... or to those who dare speak it.

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Sure, why not?

 

I would be surprised. Hard to say how I'd feel beyond that.  At present I don't think it's important to believe or disbelieve in the historicity of such things, so it's not like I have anything riding on it NOT being historical.

And yet the scriptures you say you believe in clearly testify over and over again that Jesus Christ is a real person and that his shed blood and vicarious suffering for sin was absolutely necessary or all would be lost and no good thing could come unto man. I think it's possible what's happened to you is you've thrown the baby (a real and atoning Jesus Christ) out with the bath water because you find some things in the scriptures hard to believe in a literal sense, and for consistency's sake you refuse to believe anything and everything recorded in the scriptures as real historical events.

I know you are going to be filled with immense joy when that fine day comes when you will bathe the very real pierced feet of the Savior with your very real tears. It will come as a very great relief to you to no longer be at odds with the living prophets of God.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Careful: ascendant totalising narratives don't respond well to challenge ... or to those who dare speak it.

🤗

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Conversely though: I do know people who've had a attraction to the same sex when they were tweens and then experience heterosexual attraction later in life.   

Just read about a young man who had lesbian mothers until one fell in love with a man, and left to get married to him.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

And yet the scriptures you say you believe in clearly testify over and over again that Jesus Christ is a real person and that his shed blood and vicarious suffering for sin was absolutely necessary or all would be lost and no good thing could come unto man.

Jesus WAS a real person. There's no doubt about that.

As far as the atonement goes, there are various theories on that, and the penal substitution theory comes somewhat late. If I have to hold to a theory of atonement, moral exemplar works best for me. But I don't think the historical Jesus' mission (that is to say, his intention) had to do with atonement - I think his mission was ushering in the kingdom of God.

 

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

I think it's possible what's happened to you is you've thrown the baby (a real and atoning Jesus Christ) out with the bath water because you find some things in the scriptures hard to believe in a literal sense, and for consistency's sake you refuse to believe anything and everything recorded in the scriptures as real historical events.

I know you are going to be filled with immense joy when that fine day comes when you will bathe the very real pierced feet of the Savior with your very real tears. It will come as a very great relief to you to no longer be at odds with the living prophets of God.

When it comes to my thoughts on the historical Jesus, I to go with what seems to be the best, most reasonable/critical historical conclusion. I've found this to be a joyful experience.