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

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not Scott.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and his may, as well, but I consider the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World was signed by all of The Fifteen to be highly significant.  (Perhaps I'm simply too easily impressed! )

No not at all.  I think what you are pointing out is that members of the church have different opinions of when the prophet or an apostle is speaking for God.   It is your opinion.  

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I keep reading critics saying that the proclamation was written up by the Kirton and McConkie law firm, and that it wasn't a revelation. What does the lawyer in you say about that? 

I'm not Kengo, and his and your mileage may vary, but I trust the late President Boyd K. Packer on this. He said the proclamation arose from the Church's experience with a U.N. conference on the family. The Church sent representatives to the conference, but they and the Church leaders were dismayed that marriage was not even mentioned in the conclusory document drawn up from the conference. There was to be a follow-up conference in Salt Lake City and, according to President Packer, the Church leaders determined they needed to draw up a document that expressed the position of the Church with regard to the family. So that's how "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" came about.

When you say "it wasn't a revelation," I'm uncertain  of your definition.

If you define a revelation as something that breaks new ground or declares new doctrine, then the proclamation doesn't fit that definition. It is a reiteration of truth that already was had among the Latter-day Saints and had been so from the beginning. But I do believe the proclamation was prepared under divine inspiration, and the decision to prepare and publish it was definitely divinely inspired. So, in that sense, it is a revelatory document.

I'm not sure about the Kirton McKonKie rumor that has been floating around among the Church's antagoinsts but I would just say this: In the end, what does it matter who drafts the document so long as it expresses the position of the signatories to that document, a position that had been given to them by inspiration?

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I keep reading critics saying that the proclamation was written up by the Kirton and McConkie law firm, and that it wasn't a revelation.

You keep reading this? Are you some kind of masochist, or do you just really, really want it to be true?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You keep reading this? Are you some kind of masochist, or do you just really, really want it to be true?

LOL!

I think what she means is it keeps cropping up in the antagonistic literature about Mormonism which she steadily consumes.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what she means is it keeps cropping up in the antagonistic literature about Mormonism which she steadily consumes.

Dare I repeat myself?

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I keep reading critics saying that the proclamation was written up by the Kirton and McConkie law firm, and that it wasn't a revelation. What does the lawyer in you say about that? 

I have no problem with The Fifteen seeking information from other sources (yes, even from ... Gasp!  ... lawyers) as part of the revelatory process.  In many cases, that's part of the "study-it-out-in-your-mind" phase of receiving revelation mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9, and I see no reason why that would work any differently for The Fifteen or in the case of the Proclamation than it would for any of us on any matter where we seek revelation.  (It was a part of the process leading to the revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males).  However, had anyone at Kirton & McConkie suggested including anything that is contrary to what is in the Proclamation to which each of The Fifteen affixed his signature, I see no reason why such a passage would have been included (or why, if it were, anyone who objected would sign the Proclamation).

Edited June 22, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

"I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. There is this passage from Isaiah 53:"

In essence what I mean is no one remarked to Christ "Death becomes you, my Lord."  There was no remarking of a significant change in any appearance from before death to post resurrection,

Which should tell us something about the method of procreation after resurrection.
Unless we believe certain organs become vestigial in the resurrection, eternally serving no purpose.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which should tell us something about the method of procreation after resurrection.
Unless we believe certain organs become vestigial in the resurrection, eternally serving no purpose.

Not sure how it tells us anything about procreation.  No one can tell by looking at a man if he is fertile or not, No one looking at me could know just by sight I am currently missing essential organs for the process.

Do you believe we will continue to defecate in the same fashion?  That our perfect bodies full of light rather than blood will somehow be imperfect in the process of obtaining nutrition form perfect celestial food and thus discard what would be useful if we were capable of making full use of what we take in?  Will all the glands and cells that are required to extract the good and discard the bad still be producing their apparently unneeded products?  Do you believe that when sharp objects encounter our body, we will be sliced open and whatever runs through our veins will spill out until healed?  Do you believe the body will continue to produce antibodies to prevent infections, etc and they just drift around in whatever transports nutrition and waste throughout the body, even though it is impossible for us to get sick? Will our hair continue to grow and die, our nails, our skin, almost every cell in our body?  Will we be dying in some partial fashion throughout eternity as we are in this life just because of how cells operate?

There are so many processes in the body that are dependent on change, on cells growing, then dying, being discarded.  Everything is highly interdependent.  Change one major process (removing death, sickness), you must change quite possibly all.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure how it tells us anything about procreation.  No one can tell by looking at a man if he is fertile or not, No one looking at me could know just by sight I am currently missing essential organs for the process.

Do you believe we will continue to defecate in the same fashion?  That our perfect bodies full of light rather than blood will somehow be imperfect in the process of obtaining nutrition form perfect celestial food and thus discard what would be useful if we were capable of making full use of what we take in?  Will all the glands and cells that are required to extract the good and discard the bad still be producing their apparently unneeded products?  Do you believe that when sharp objects encounter our body, we will be sliced open and whatever runs through our veins will spill out until healed?  Do you believe the body will continue to produce antibodies to prevent infections, etc and they just drift around in whatever transports nutrition and waste throughout the body, even though it is impossible for us to get sick? Will our hair continue to grow and die, our nails, our skin, almost every cell in our body?  Will we be dying in some partial fashion throughout eternity as we are in this life just because of how cells operate?

There are so many processes in the body that are dependent on change, on cells growing, then dying, being discarded.  Everything is highly interdependent.  Change one major process (removing death, sickness), you must change quite possibly all.

You are speaking of internal organs and mortal fertility.  I am not.
And no, I don't believe our bodies will produce waste products in the resurrection, although I do believe eating is possible which requires certain organs to remain functional (John 21:12-13, Luke 24:42-43).

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are speaking of internal organs and mortal fertility.  I am not.
And no, I don't believe our bodies will produce waste products in the resurrection, although I do believe eating is possible which requires certain organs to remain functional (John 21:12-13, Luke 24:42-43).

Then if no waste products will be produced, you are describing a fundamental overhaul of the whole body...lose blood as well, no need for the lymphatic system any more.

It is like removing the skeleton and then claiming that somehow the body is just going to keep walking without any other major adjustment.

Body processes are too interconnected.  Think ripple effect, change one thing here and you have to change hundreds elsewhere to accommodate it.  If the body no longer has to fight off sickness, no longer lives in an polluted environment, we no longer need hairs in our nose and mucus to prevent infection or damage.  We no longer need antibodies or blood so toss all the bone marrow and other blood producing  regulating processes.  If the body no longer produces waste, then we don't need veins since whatever is transported for energy to the cells in our arteries won't have waste that need to be cleaned out.

I am not claiming that the ability to procreate will be absent, but postulating there are huge changes throughout the body due to perfection and the change of blood to something quite different, including changes in major elements of the reproductive system and then suggesting that in no way prevents reproduction from carrying on pretty much as it always has is ignoring how biology actually works, imo.

You can't reject basic biology at one moment and then appeal to it as evidence in the next.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then if no waste products will be produced, you are describing a fundamental overhaul of the whole body...lose blood as well, no need for the lymphatic system any more.

It is like removing the skeleton and then claiming that somehow the body is just going to keep walking without any other major adjustment.

Body processes are too interconnected.  Think ripple effect, change one thing here and you have to change hundreds elsewhere to accommodate it.  If the body no longer has to fight off sickness, no longer lives in an polluted environment, we no longer need hairs in our nose and mucus to prevent infection or damage.  We no longer need antibodies or blood so toss all the bone marrow and other blood producing  regulating processes.  If the body no longer produces waste, then we don't need veins since whatever is transported for energy to the cells in our arteries won't have waste that need to be cleaned out.

I am not claiming that the ability to procreate will be absent, but postulating there are huge changes throughout the body due to perfection and the change of blood to something quite different, including changes in major elements of the reproductive system and then suggesting that in no way prevents reproduction from carrying on pretty much as it always has is ignoring how biology actually works, imo.

You can't reject basic biology at one moment and then appeal to it as evidence in the next.

Except I think we can.
It's like anything else.  Some aspects of mortality are direct copies of heavenly patterns.  Some aspects are direct results of the fall.
Here on earth they are undeniably inseparable and interconnected.  In the resurrection they won't be because all fallen elements will be removed.

That is how I view the body.  We will have veins.  They will not carry blood made of earthly nutrients.  We will have a skeleton.  It will not rely on earthly minerals for its make up.
We will have a brain.  We do not know how thoughts and signals will be transmitted.  We apparently will have a stomach and mouth and teeth (Christ having eaten as a resurrected being).
And we will have reproductive organs, but they will not require blood to function.

I don't believe when scripture says we are made in God's image that there are parts of our body that are pointless in the resurrection.  Scripture says we will raise our body up as it is laid down and not a hair will be lost.
But it also tells us that the impure mortal elements will be removed.
Removing all the impure moral elements doesn't change the function of our design.
 

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe when scripture says we are made in God's image that there are parts of our body that are pointless in the resurrection.  S
 

The scriptures say that we are made in God's image, but they don't explain what exactly this means.  It seems apparent that our bodies are made to live in and function in a temporal world. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[Calm]

From FB:

Tina Tuttle

"Rachel, this is my ward and I was there. This is a sweet girl that shared this, but it still was not appropriate for a sacrament meeting. The comments that you quoted are not entirely true. Several people started recording when she got up, not just one. They say there was no agenda with it, but it clearly seems like there was with how it has gone viral and has been shared so much. There are many reasons why someone would be asked to stop sharing a 'testimony'. The stake leader was doing his job. He is a very kind hearted and well respected man. I know he was not trying to hurt her feelings, but was doing his job. He reminded everyone in the congregation that the pulpit is sacred and we need to be careful of what is shared there. She did start with what seemed to be a sweet testimony, but when she started saying things that go against church doctrine, that is not ok. She was actually allowed to speak for quite a bit before she was stopped. As church members, we have been given counsel for many years as to what a testimony should consist of. This was much more a talk about being gay. There are many other ways that she could have talked about this or shared her feelings, but this was not appropriate. This family is very loved, and the stake leader is also very loved. This is a very kind ward and has offered much love and support to this family in the past. No one would want her feelings to be hurt, it was just unfortunate that she thought this was an appropriate place to do this. This was just a sad situation. But many things that have been shared regarding it are not true, and it is being used to perpetuate the idea that Mormons hate gays, which we do not. When the stake leader took over the meeting, he did not say anything bad about her, but he was protecting his flock. What if other people had prepared statements? They already had been videoing which is not allowed in any chapel. He had to do what he thought was best and was inspired to do."

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Which should tell us something about the method of procreation after resurrection.
Unless we believe certain organs become vestigial in the resurrection, eternally serving no purpose.

? You just said that there will be no elimination of waste. There are a fair amount of organs involved in that. You have just destroyed your own position. You are simply privileging the organs you want to keep. 

So just as a hypothetical...if women decide to keep the bowels and kidneys and lose the reproductive organs (because they are no longer necessary), who are you going to have all this sex with?  Oh, wait....

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The scriptures say that we are made in God's image, but they don't explain what exactly this means.  It seems apparent that our bodies are made to and function in a temporal world.

• God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
• Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
• D&C 130:1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
• The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374).
• “As concerning the resurrection I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young their will not be added unto their stature one cubit neither taken from it. All being raised by the power of God having the spirit of God in their bodies & not Blood ”  Wilford Woodruff
• "God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle. Some dwell in higher glory than others."  Joseph Smith

As far as I am concerned the idea that our resurrected bodies function completely differently from our mortal ones is the speculation here.
The prophets and scriptures teach that our resurrected bodies are the same as our mortal ones, just more pure in element.
It seems to me we are back to hoofbeats again.  Horses or Zebras.  Every hoofbeat (reference) concerning the resurrection refers to our bodies being of the same design here.  I see no reason to start looking for zebras.

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

? You just said that there will be no elimination of waste. There are a fair amount of organs involved in that. You have just destroyed your own position. You are simply privileging the organs you want to keep.

And yet Christ ate.
Food went somewhere in his resurrected body.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

From FB:

Tina Tuttle

"Rachel, this is my ward and I was there. This is a sweet girl that shared this, but it still was not appropriate for a sacrament meeting. The comments that you quoted are not entirely true. Several people started recording when she got up, not just one. They say there was no agenda with it, but it clearly seems like there was with how it has gone viral and has been shared so much. There are many reasons why someone would be asked to stop sharing a 'testimony'. The stake leader was doing his job. He is a very kind hearted and well respected man. I know he was not trying to hurt her feelings, but was doing his job. He reminded everyone in the congregation that the pulpit is sacred and we need to be careful of what is shared there. She did start with what seemed to be a sweet testimony, but when she started saying things that go against church doctrine, that is not ok. She was actually allowed to speak for quite a bit before she was stopped. As church members, we have been given counsel for many years as to what a testimony should consist of. This was much more a talk about being gay. There are many other ways that she could have talked about this or shared her feelings, but this was not appropriate. This family is very loved, and the stake leader is also very loved. This is a very kind ward and has offered much love and support to this family in the past. No one would want her feelings to be hurt, it was just unfortunate that she thought this was an appropriate place to do this. This was just a sad situation. But many things that have been shared regarding it are not true, and it is being used to perpetuate the idea that Mormons hate gays, which we do not. When the stake leader took over the meeting, he did not say anything bad about her, but he was protecting his flock. What if other people had prepared statements? They already had been videoing which is not allowed in any chapel. He had to do what he thought was best and was inspired to do."

I know there's a lot of repetition in this thread, but after listening to the Dehlin interview with Savannah and her mom, it is astounding to me that they get a free pass for preparing the speech over the course of weeks or months and not once did they think to involve the Bishop in the discussion.  

The mom also talks about how much she wishes the Bishop had been there when the speech was given, but doesn't acknowledge the fact that she could have waited until the next month.  Sure, kids can get impatient when they want something right now, but isn't it the parents' job to be the voice of patience and reason?

I know Dehlin is terrible at "interviews", and heaven forbid someone ask Savannah and her mom a question that has even the tinge of reason, but even I was a little disappointed that he didn't at least approach the possibility of checking with the Bishop beforehand and delaying the talk when it turned out he wasn't there.  It's hard for me to believe there was any sort of sincerity in their pleas for tolerance and good feelings without those aspects being addressed.

Edited June 22, 2017 by cinepro

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And yet Christ ate.
Food went somewhere in his resurrected body.

Boy, could I have fun with that one....

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I know there's a lot of repetition in this thread, but after listening to the Dehlin interview with Savannah and her mom, it is astounding to me that they get a free pass for preparing the speech over the course of weeks or months and not once did they think to involve the Bishop in the discussion.  

The mom also talks about how much she wishes the Bishop had been there when the speech was given, but doesn't acknowledge the fact that she could have waited until the next month.  Sure, kids can get impatient when they want something right now, but isn't it the parents' job to be the voice of patience and reason?

I know Dehlin is terrible at "interviews", and heaven forbid someone ask Savannah and her mom a question that has even the tinge of reason, but even I was a little disappointed that he didn't at least approach the possibility of checking with the Bishop beforehand and delaying the talk when it turns out he wasn't there.  It's hard for me to believe there was any sort of sincerity in their pleas for tolerance and good feelings without those aspects being addressed.

How thorough do you think they the parents were with respect to considering all the potential ramifications?  It sounds to me like they thought through things ahead of time and that they discussed the reasons for Savannah wanting to do this and that her parents voiced their support to her.  I don't think they needed to make sure the Bishop was present, sure he might not have cut her off in the middle, but nobody can predict the future.  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I know there's a lot of repetition in this thread, but after listening to the Dehlin interview with Savannah and her mom, it is astounding to me that they get a free pass for preparing the speech over the course of weeks or months and not once did they think to involve the Bishop in the discussion.  

The mom also talks about how much she wishes the Bishop had been there when the speech was given, but doesn't acknowledge the fact that she could have waited until the next month.  Sure, kids can get impatient when they want something right now, but isn't it the parents' job to be the voice of patience and reason?

I know Dehlin is terrible at "interviews", and heaven forbid someone ask Savannah and her mom a question that has even the tinge of reason, but even I was a little disappointed that he didn't at least approach the possibility of checking with the Bishop beforehand and delaying the talk when it turns out he wasn't there.  It's hard for me to believe there was any sort of sincerity in their pleas for tolerance and good feelings without those aspects being addressed.

For me this is the crucial point, especially when the Bishop is described as best friends with the dad.  Even if one assumes he would have been okay with it, how kind is it to ignore the stress it will put on him and the position it puts him in where he might have made a decision he later regretted due to being distracted by one thing and unable to process what else was happening at the time clearly?

i can see why if there were a number of invitees in the audience, they decided not to wait...how rude to have them come all that way and listen to a whole fast and Testimony Meeting without the promised event (at least one hadn't been in church for years iirc, but came just for this speech), but this could have easily been avoided by a simple discussion with their dear friend, the bishop before inviting everyone.

It is not only 12 year olds that should be given the chance to prepare so they can get things right.

They ignored the needs of a very good friend.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How thorough do you think they the parents were with respect to considering all the potential ramifications?  It sounds to me like they thought through things ahead of time and that they discussed the reasons for Savannah wanting to do this and that her parents voiced their support to her.  I don't think they needed to make sure the Bishop was present, sure he might not have cut her off in the middle, but nobody can predict the future.  

Are you asking why should they think about the feelings of a dear friend about being placed in a difficult situation and having to think on his feet and likely secondguess himself while all the media stuff was going on?

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How thorough do you think they the parents were with respect to considering all the potential ramifications?  It sounds to me like they thought through things ahead of time and that they discussed the reasons for Savannah wanting to do this and that her parents voiced their support to her.  I don't think they needed to make sure the Bishop was present, sure he might not have cut her off in the middle, but nobody can predict the future.  

My first concern is that any parent would video their young daughter, identify her, her sexual orientation, and her locale, and send it across the world with all the hatemonger crazies that are out there, the real ones.  I really can't get past that. 

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me this is the crucial point, especially when the Bishop is described as best friends with the dad.  Even if one assumes he would have been okay with it, how kind is it to ignore the stress it will put on him and the position it puts him in where he might have made a decision he later regretted due to being distracted by one thing and unable to process what else was happening at the time clearly?

i can see why if there were a number of invitees in the audience, they decided not to wait...how rude to have them come all that way and listen to a whole fast and Testimony Meeting without the promised event (at least one hadn't been in church for years iirc, but came just for this speech), but this could have easily been avoided by a simple discussion with their dear friend, the bishop before inviting everyone.

It is not only 12 year olds that should be given the chance to prepare so they can get things right.

They ignored the needs of a very good friend.

The needs of the many at least some of whom had come to watch this giant grandstanding ploy outweigh the needs of the one.

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
• Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
• D&C 130:1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
• The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374).
• “As concerning the resurrection I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young their will not be added unto their stature one cubit neither taken from it. All being raised by the power of God having the spirit of God in their bodies & not Blood ”  Wilford Woodruff
• "God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle. Some dwell in higher glory than others."  Joseph Smith

As far as I am concerned the idea that our resurrected bodies function completely differently from our mortal ones is the speculation here.
The prophets and scriptures teach that our resurrected bodies are the same as our mortal ones, just more pure in element.
It seems to me we are back to hoofbeats again.  Horses or Zebras.  Every hoofbeat (reference) concerning the resurrection refers to our bodies being of the same design here.  I see no reason to start looking for zebras.

All in all I'm not sure it really matters right now.  No worries.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me this is the crucial point, especially when the Bishop is described as best friends with the dad.  Even if one assumes he would have been okay with it, how kind is it to ignore the stress it will put on him and the position it puts him in where he might have made a decision he later regretted due to being distracted by one thing and unable to process what else was happening at the time clearly?

i can see why if there were a number of invitees in the audience, they decided not to wait...how rude to have them come all that way and listen to a whole fast and Testimony Meeting without the promised event (at least one hadn't been in church for years iirc, but came just for this speech), but this could have easily been avoided by a simple discussion with their dear friend, the bishop before inviting everyone.

It is not only 12 year olds that should be given the chance to prepare so they can get things right.

They ignored the needs of a very good friend.

Do we know why the bishop wasn't there? To me it seems kinder that he wasn't there, as if they planned it that way so that he wouldn't be in a difficult position. Maybe I need to go back and re-watch the interview with JD, can't remember what went on. But I believe Savannah is definitely taking a stand. And she did make a stand. Whether it will backfire, dunno. So far, it's making an impact from what I can see. Maybe the church will change it's stance on the November '15 policy. Sometimes it takes people to make these stands to get change, that may be what was on her mind. 

http://fox13now.com/2017/06/21/utah-teen-speaks-after-video-of-her-testimony-on-being-mormon-and-gay-goes-viral/

"“Because I wanted my message to come out to everyone and because even if I was to stand by and watch it happen, nothing would happen and it would probably get worse,” Savannah said."

Edited June 22, 2017 by Tacenda