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

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Add to that, CNN not providing their surname or town name at their request to protect identity and privacy, and then publish the bishop's name in the same article so any hatemonger crazy can figure it out.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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

Me too!  Would actually like to eat the doughnuts I make every day!!

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

It wasn't the parent.

Though I imagine the parent could have asked for it to be removed and the friend who posted it would have honored such a request.  However, if you listen to the interview with Savannah's mom she speaks of the difficult decision and that ultimately it was Savannah who wanted her voice to be heard so that other LGBT youth would realize that they weren't alone.  The mother chose to honor the daughter's request and allow for all the publicity that is happening.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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?

Possibly they could have thought of that ahead of time, I'm just saying realistically I don't think many people think that far ahead or that comprehensively about the decisions they make.  How thorough should we expect people to be in the real world?  

[rockpond]

It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this.  Have they been quoted somewhere in a new story that I missed?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

I personally wouldn't do it, but I try to understand the perspective of these people, and it sounds like Savannah was the catalyst for wanting to share the message, and that she wanted to share it to help others who may be hurting from the culture of silence around this topic in Mormonism.  I can't completely fault those intentions.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It wasn't the parent.

Though I imagine the parent could have asked for it to be removed and the friend who posted it would have honored such a request.  However, if you listen to the interview with Savannah's mom she speaks of the difficult decision and that ultimately it was Savannah who wanted her voice to be heard so that other LGBT youth would realize that they weren't alone.  The mother chose to honor the daughter's request and allow for all the publicity that is happening.

Not buying it.
Having watched the podcast, this whole situation has the mother and her ex-member bitterness all over it.
Savannah was a pawn, even if she was convinced it was her idea.  This was a media play, and "the friend" that posted it being NNN is no coincidence.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this.  Have they been quoted somewhere in a new story that I missed?

I just saw that the NYT has an article on it now.  I'm sure they are considering making a statement, but I can't imagine how they can spin this positively for the church.  What would they say that wouldn't just make this worse.  They can't apologize for her being cut off in the middle of the testimony.  They can't apologize for the policy or the culture around gay people because they are too concerned about not reacting to public pressure on social issues.  What do you think they could realistically say that wouldn't just dig a deeper hole on this issue?  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/mormon-girl-gay-speech.html

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Add to that, CNN not providing their surname or town name at their request to protect identity and privacy, and then publish the bishop's name in the same article so any hatemonger crazy can figure it out.

Your statement made me curious.
It took me just a few minutes to find their last name, then their address, facebook pages, etc.

Why would you expose your child to such easy publicity?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

No, they didn't plan it that way from everything said.

So it's okay to put less than dear friends in potentially horrible situations without warning?

Any activist would have to be clueless not to realize their leaders would end up being targets of hate mail, etc.  The mother appears to me to have been relatively well aware of current affairs.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, they didn't plan it that way from everything said.

So it's okay to put less than dear friends in potentially horrible situations without warning?

Any activist would have to be clueless not to realize their leaders would end up being targets of hate mail, etc.  The mother appears to me to have been relatively well aware of current affairs.

Oh, I see where you are coming from. People will think it was him who turned the mic off. 

[Calm]

 

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Possibly they could have thought of that ahead of time, I'm just saying realistically I don't think many people think that far ahead or that comprehensively about the decisions they make.  How thorough should we expect people to be in the real world?  

As least as thorough as they are asking people to be towards them.

Savannah and her mother are out there asking people to show compassion to those who are gay by thinking about the impact of the words and behaviour and how it may unintentionally hurt those who are LGBT or have loved ones who identify as such.

Where is the compassion and thought put into avoiding unintentionally harming their best friend and the friends in the ward and church leadership?

[Calm]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Oh, I see where you are coming from. People will think it was him who turned the mic off. 

No, I am not saying that at all.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally wouldn't do it, but I try to understand the perspective of these people, and it sounds like Savannah was the catalyst for wanting to share the message, and that she wanted to share it to help others who may be hurting from the culture of silence around this topic in Mormonism.  I can't completely fault those intentions.  

12 year old girl...would you let a 12 year old daughter post her profile on a site known for stalkers?  Would you allow her to attend a rally where you knew violence was likely to occur?

[ksfisher]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this.  Have they been quoted somewhere in a new story that I missed?

Why would they respond?  And if they did what would you expect them to say?

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

As least as thorough as they are asking people to be towards them.

Savannah and her mother are out there asking people to show compassion to those who are gay by thinking about the impact of the words and behaviour and how it may unintentionally hurt those who are LGBT or have loved ones who identify as such.

Where is the compassion and thought put into avoiding unintentionally harming their best friend and the friends in the ward and church leadership?

I don't know that anyone could prevent harm in this situation.  I think its a matter of prioritization.  Which harm is more egregious.  The harm to friends in the ward, or the harm that church culture has created towards the LGBT community and potential suicides and suffering in silence.  My guess, they realized this could hurt some relationships, but felt like the greater good was to open up and share their experience in hopes that it helps someone who is suffering somewhere.  

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not buying it.
Having watched the podcast, this whole situation has the mother and her ex-member bitterness all over it.
Savannah was a pawn, even if she was convinced it was her idea.  This was a media play, and "the friend" that posted it being NNN is no coincidence.

So you are basically just calling them liars.  Okay then, I guess you can hold to that opinion.

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

12 year old girl...would you let a 12 year old daughter post her profile on a site known for stalkers?  Would you allow her to attend a rally where you knew violence was likely to occur?

I probably wouldn't, knowing my own worries and personality and my fears would keep me from doing something like this, I'm a more private person.  But I also might not be the kind of person to make changes in a society that is oppressive.  I might not be the personality that stands up against all odds and against my group.  I admire the courage, in spite of the risks you mention.   

Also, what rally where violence was likely to occur?  Not sure what you're referring to here.  

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just saw that the NYT has an article on it now.  I'm sure they are considering making a statement, but I can't imagine how they can spin this positively for the church.  What would they say that wouldn't just make this worse.  They can't apologize for her being cut off in the middle of the testimony.  They can't apologize for the policy or the culture around gay people because they are too concerned about not reacting to public pressure on social issues.  What do you think they could realistically say that wouldn't just dig a deeper hole on this issue?  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/mormon-girl-gay-speech.html

 

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why would they respond?  And if they did what would you expect them to say?

 

I'm not sure what I expect them to say.  They are the prophets, seers, and revelators.  Seems like they might have something relevant to say given the claims that they have received the mind and will of God on this subject.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you are basically just calling them liars.  Okay then, I guess you can hold to that opinion.

Actually, lying doesn't need to be a factor.
I am sure Savannah believes this was all her idea.  I am also sure that her mother's opinions vocally expressed in the home after her exit from the Church influenced Savannah.  I am sure that NNN was the person who posted the video of the testimony for a reason.

They don't need to lie.  They simply arranged everything that happened with the exception of the mic cut.

Edited June 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

As least as thorough as they are asking people to be towards them.

Savannah and her mother are out there asking people to show compassion to those who are gay by thinking about the impact of the words and behaviour and how it may unintentionally hurt those who are LGBT or have loved ones who identify as such.

Where is the compassion and thought put into avoiding unintentionally harming their best friend and the friends in the ward and church leadership?

I'm not disagreeing with you because I think that you have a really excellent point.  I just think it's worth adding that it's possible that they really felt that this (a testimony that they had re-written multiple times to try to get it "right") would not be a cause that the ward leadership would be harmed by.  In hindsight they were obviously wrong and consulting with the bishop, especially if he's a close friend, would have likely helped everyone.  Just want to keep that perspective in the mix, especially considering some of the claims by JLHPROF and others.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, rockpond said:

 

 

I'm not sure what I expect them to say.  They are the prophets, seers, and revelators.  Seems like they might have something relevant to say given the claims that they have received the mind and will of God on this subject.

Those titles are more about tradition, than reality.  Should they show leadership and have something relevant to say, I'd be all for it, I just don't see any precedent for this kind of ecstatic prophesying in the modern church.  They are the leaders, the presidents, the administrators, but they operate the church as a corporation with a PR department.  

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not disagreeing with you because I think that you have a really excellent point.  I just think it's worth adding that it's possible that they really felt that this (a testimony that they had re-written multiple times to try to get it "right") would not be a cause that the ward leadership would be harmed by.  In hindsight they were obviously wrong and consulting with the bishop, especially if he's a close friend, would have likely helped everyone.  Just want to keep that perspective in the mix, especially considering some of the claims by JLHPROF and others.

The problem is, imo, that is the very attitude that they are fighting against.

Ward members and others generally aren't making offensive comments knowing they will harm others.  Ask them and their response would have been most likely 'no one will be harmed by it'.

And yet there were.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just saw that the NYT has an article on it now.  I'm sure they are considering making a statement, but I can't imagine how they can spin this positively for the church.  What would they say that wouldn't just make this worse.  They can't apologize for her being cut off in the middle of the testimony.  They can't apologize for the policy or the culture around gay people because they are too concerned about not reacting to public pressure on social issues.  What do you think they could realistically say that wouldn't just dig a deeper hole on this issue?  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/mormon-girl-gay-speech.html

 

You mean something like this?

 

Quote

Recent news articles are sharing a story about a young girl speaking to her Mormon congregation and sharing her sexual orientation.  The video shows her standing in a Mormon "Fast and Testimony" meeting, wherein each month, a Sunday meeting is set aside for families to gather together and, in addition to partaking of the sacrament (or "communion"), for members to spontaneously share their "testimony" or beliefs about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, as well as other fundamental beliefs regarding our religion.

As shown in videos that were taken by visitors  to the congregation that day, this young girl used this time to share a prepared statement that, in addition to sharing her identification as "gay" and "lesbian", encouraged the congregation to approach her and others with "tolerance" and "love."  As Christians, we as a Church fully support such exhortations and would encourage everyone, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, to treat others, including those who identify as "Gay", "Lesbian", "Bi-sexual", "Queer" etc. with kindness and love.

But in addition to these simple, Christian reminders of goodwill towards others, there were also views expressed that go against basic Mormon Church doctrines regarding gender and the role of marriage in society.  These doctrines are most clearly expressed in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", and numerous statements from Church leaders over the years.  While such a congregational meeting is an appropriate place to remind us of Christian values such as charity and love towards others, such a meeting is not a proper venue to debate or contradict the basic teachings of the Church.  Since this statement was being presented with no advance notice to Church leaders at the meeting, they had no warning of the content of the message, nor how long the speech was to continue, nor what other Church teachings might be contradicted.  That being the case, after 2 minutes of speaking, a decision was made to turn off the microphone and excuse her from the stand. 

We appreciate the thought and sentiment that was put into preparing the statement, and had the leaders been given notice and Church doctrines not been contradicted, it may have been suitable to be shared at other Mormon meetings.  As always, members can share concerns regarding Church doctrines with their local Bishops and other leaders. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by cinepro

[Calm]

Works for me.