ttribe Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The first line of the scripture you've linked to is "Take heed that ye despise not these little ones." Are you saying that someone is despising her? Perhaps that's not what you intended and I've misunderstood. As in all things, we interpret scripture based on our individual circumstances.
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, ttribe said: As in all things, we interpret scripture based on our individual circumstances. So what are you trying to say? 1
Jeanne Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. She has not sinned. 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: The first line of the scripture you've linked to is "Take heed that ye despise not these little ones." Are you saying that someone is despising her? Perhaps that's not what you intended and I've misunderstood. I think you may have misunderstood..although I love the scripture. If all those down the line from prophets, stake presidents and bishops could only heed to this..verbally she was not condemned but by their actions.
JLHPROF Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: She has not sinned. She is dreaming of sinning. I hope someday to go on dates, go to school dances, to hold hands, to go off to college. I hope to find a partner and have a great job. I hope to get married and have a family. I know these dreams and wishes are good and right. I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy. Quote I think you may have misunderstood..although I love the scripture. If all those down the line from prophets, stake presidents and bishops could only heed to this..verbally she was not condemned but by their actions. She was not condemned in any way. She was told, as Christ told the woman, to go. 2
ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: She has not sinned. I think you may have misunderstood..although I love the scripture. If all those down the line from prophets, stake presidents and bishops could only heed to this..verbally she was not condemned but by their actions. My response was to a post by ttribe.
ttribe Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 25 minutes ago, ksfisher said: So what are you trying to say? I can't tell you what it means to you. For me, it's a reminder that I should withhold any judgment on a little girl going through an experience I cannot possibly understand. 2
Rain Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: How about just acknowledging Savannah? Not her parents..not whoever did the video..but to her..that she is valued and what she says matters...though they disagree. She knows what a testimony is..this is hers...none of his have the same testimonies ever..but acknowledge this child of God. "After Savannah spoke, the Church leader conducting stood up and repeated the uplifting and true statements that Savannah made. There was no harsh language. There was no condemnation. There was no negative judgement. There was no lack of support for Savannah as a daughter of God." https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/06/18/testimonies-twelve-year-olds My heck..what would Jesus do? Shut up Savannah..just shut up?? This is hyperbole. Edited June 23, 2017 by Rain 1
cinepro Posted June 23, 2017 Author Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Who wrote this? Sounds like an apologetic response to me, not an official church statement. Can you share the link? To quote Bruce R. McConkie when someone asked him about the source for one of his teachings: "I'm the source." I just sketched out the direction an official response could take in acknowledging the admirable plea for love and tolerance, but also putting the context of the speech and its doctrinal content into consideration. Edited June 23, 2017 by cinepro
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Are you really sure that you would know what Jesus would do? And are you accusing her local leaders of not caring about Savannah? Do you really know what is in their hearts? This is really an amazing post considering ALL the speculation about what Savannah's intent was. Whether this was all carefully planned out. How her mother feels about the church . Whether she is bitter towards the church. Why Savannah wrote this out. 41 pages later and someone asks "Do you really know what is in their hearts?" as soon as someone speculated about the intent of the stake president. That question should have been asked long ago. 1
Popular Post ksfisher Posted June 23, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, california boy said: This is really an amazing post considering ALL the speculation about what Savannah's intent was. Whether this was all carefully planned out. How her mother feels about the church . Whether she is bitter towards the church. Why Savannah wrote this out. 41 pages later and someone asks "Do you really know what is in their hearts?" as soon as someone speculated about the intent of the stake president. That question should have been asked long ago. I just really don't like it when someone trots out the "what would Jesus do" line, as if that person knows while the person on the other end of the discussion doesn't. As you've brought out, we do not know what was going on within any of the people involved. We can see their actions and hear their words, but what goes on inside another person is a mystery. This is why the authority to judge and to reward or condemn based on that judgement is left in the hands of God. Nevertheless, God has called people to administer and regulate the affairs of His kingdom while we are on this earth. Those people are often called upon to make decisions based on on the words or actions of others. The counselor in the stake presidency was put in the position of how best to handle a difficult situation. A member of the congregation was using the meeting to put forth views that are not in line with the gospel. Magnifying the situation was the fact that if was a 12 year old girl doing this and that the meeting was being surreptitiously recorded. If he doesn't do anything it could be seen as giving tacit endorsement to the views she was putting forth. If he does do something, which he did, he gets vilified by disaffected members of the church. My personal opinion is that his actions were appropriate to the situation. 8
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: I don't know if anybody has made this point. but I would take offense at a video recording of a sacrament meeting I'm in. I have a right to be there without public display of what is going on, and it is an invasion of privacy of every congregant therein. Although I don't much give a hoot as to what this little girl had to say, perhaps the bishopric should have just stopped proceedings and asked that phones be put down. I agree with you as pertaining to sacrament meeting, but only because my view is that a Church worship service is and should be a sanctuary. If you were to raise the same objection about, say, a concert or a seminar or some other public gathering, I would earnestly disagree. In fact, in the course of my work, I have taken pictures of the audience in such gatherings and have published them. In my view, I am entitled to record and disseminate what takes place at a public event, as any one who happens by would be apt to see you there. If you don't want to be seen there, don't show up.
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 On 15.6.2017 at 8:15 PM, Tacenda said: I feel bad about her getting the plug pulled, but it sheds light on how some in the church feel about the gay issue. This is already making the rounds in the news. If this is the start of what is to become in sharing views like this at the pulpit, I wonder how long F&T meeting will continue. I've seen other videos when someone had the volume turned down but it was about a faith crisis. It was going to make the rounds anyway. Why did someone film it and then leak it? It was a setup. Did members know that she was gay? Does she usually wear a white shirt and tie to church meetings? It seems that this was well planned. And should a twelve year old talk about their sexuality in the meetings. 3
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: This is really an amazing post considering ALL the speculation about what Savannah's intent was. Whether this was all carefully planned out. How her mother feels about the church . Whether she is bitter towards the church. Why Savannah wrote this out. 41 pages later and someone asks "Do you really know what is in their hearts?" as soon as someone speculated about the intent of the stake president. That question should have been asked long ago. Since it was recorded and then leaked, I believe it was planned. First, one should not leak a video statement by a child when it comes to their sexuality. It would be considered to be exploitation of a child. So, I would assume that it was a family member who released the video or the person got permission. Or there would be a huge lawsuit. It was a setup against the ward in question. It was also filmed on the sly. Edited June 23, 2017 by why me 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, ksfisher said: I just really don't like it when someone trots out the "what would Jesus do" line, as if that person knows while the person on the other end of the discussion doesn't. As you've brought out, we do not know what was going on within any of the people involved. We can see their actions and hear their words, but what goes on inside another person is a mystery. This is why the authority to judge and to reward or condemn based on that judgement is left in the hands of God. Nevertheless, God has called people to administer and regulate the affairs of His kingdom while we are on this earth. Those people are often called upon to make decisions based on on the words or actions of others. The counselor in the stake presidency was put in the position of how best to handle a difficult situation. A member of the congregation was using the meeting to put forth views that are not in line with the gospel. Magnifying the situation was the fact that if was a 12 year old girl doing this and that the meeting was being surreptitiously recorded. If he doesn't do anything it could be seen as giving tacit endorsement to the views she was putting forth. If he does do something, which he did, he gets vilified by disaffected members of the church. My personal opinion is that his actions were appropriate to the situation. The tacit endorsement concern is very real. These things have a way of proliferating unless boundaries are established. So if you're going to be pilloried in public anyway, you might as well maintain the boundaries and do so clearly. There is a light-rail line and trail that run adjacent to my house and those of my neighbors. When the train line was established the transit company put up sound barriers between the trail and our homes to mitigate the noise. There was real concern that the sound walls would be magnets for graffiti. There has been some of that, but the company and the city have been good about removing or painting over the graffiti as soon as they are notified about it. The theory is that such promptness greatly reduces the graffiti over all, as the vandals get frustrated and move on to less-secure areas. I believe there is truth to that, and it applies in an analogous way to not permitting a violation of sacred spaces and occasions, no matter how well-meaning or popular the violation might be. Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 W 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: How about just acknowledging Savannah? Not her parents..not whoever did the video..but to her..that she is valued and what she says matters...though they disagree. She knows what a testimony is..this is hers...none of his have the same testimonies ever..but acknowledge this child of God. My heck..what would Jesus do? Shut up Savannah..just shut up?? Not sure if it is ever good for a child to speak about their sexuality in such a setting. Why make it public and do it in such a way? And did members already know that she is gay? Was this her coming out moment? This was done for publicity. It was recorded and released for a reason. And it made her famous for 15 minutes. Would it be okay for a child give a testimony about their heterosexuality? Why would it? 3
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 Also, if I had a an 8 year old or a 7 year old, I am not sure if I would feel comfortable with a testimony about sex and sexuality or someone'stalk about their sexual orientation. Should an 8 year old know the definition of hetero, gay, metro, transgender etc? What happened to the GI Joe doll and Mr. Potato Head? 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, why me said: Also, if I had a an 8 year old or a 7 year old, I am not sure if I would feel comfortable with a testimony about sex and sexuality or someone'stalk about their sexual orientation. Should an 8 year old know the definition of hetero, gay, metro, transgender etc? What happened to the GI Joe doll and Mr. Potato Head? That's a good point. In keeping with the conception of a Church worship service attended by people of all ages being a sanctuary, I don't approve of speakers -- even pre-teen speakers -- discussing issues of sexuality from the pulpit. It is not appropriate content for children in the congregation. The parents in this incident should have been sensitive to that concern, even if their daughter wasn't. Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
Rain Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, why me said: Also, if I had a an 8 year old or a 7 year old, I am not sure if I would feel comfortable with a testimony about sex and sexuality or someone'stalk about their sexual orientation. Should an 8 year old know the definition of hetero, gay, metro, transgender etc? What happened to the GI Joe doll and Mr. Potato Head? If you are not homeschooling then much of this comes much younger than any parents want anymore. I figured that I would naturally answer questions about sexuality as my children asked them. It was great for my daughter, but my oldest never asked. I finally had to be the one to talk to him because I discovered things were being talked about at school on the playground. My daughter even came to me at about age 8 with questions when a friend at church was talking about sex. If I were to be in the ward and my child came to me asking what a lesbian is the answer would be pretty simple and non sexual. "It is a girl who likes or is in love with girls instead of boys." I was not comfortable with Savanna's talk, but this is NOT a sexual talk. 3
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's a good point. In keeping with the conception of a Church worship service at which all ages are invited being a sanctuary, I don't approve of speakers -- even pre-teen speakers -- discussing issues of sexuality from the pulpit. It is not appropriate content for children in the congregation. I find her way of dressing interesting. She was wearing a white shirt and tie? Why? And what is the symbol of such a dress? For example, her dress would imply that she is a lesbian who would take on a masculine role. In other words, she would be the husband in a future relationship. Or was her style of dress just a statement for the video? It seems that her testimony was done for shock value and for publicity and to make a point about church policy. I write these things because this is what I would be thinking if I were present in the meeting. I don't think that I would be focusing on my own spirituality. 1
Rain Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's a good point. In keeping with the conception of a Church worship service attended by people of all ages being a sanctuary, I don't approve of speakers -- even pre-teen speakers -- discussing issues of sexuality from the pulpit. It is not appropriate content for children in the congregation. The parents in this incident should have been sensitive to that concern, even if their daughter wasn't. Even though I disagree that this is an issue of sexuality for Savannah, I do think the parents (or parent*) should have been more sensitive to concerns. * We really don't know anything, as far as I am aware, of how the dad feels.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Rain said: If you are not homeschooling then much of this comes much younger than any parents want anymore. I figured that I would naturally answer questions about sexuality as my children asked them. It was great for my daughter, but my oldest never asked. I finally had to be the one to talk to him because I discovered things were being talked about at school on the playground. My daughter even came to me at about age 8 with questions when a friend at church was talking about sex. If I were to be in the ward and my child came to me asking what a lesbian is the answer would be pretty simple and non sexual. "It is a girl who likes or is in love with girls instead of boys." I was not comfortable with Savanna's talk, but this is NOT a sexual talk. It doesn't matter if it is being talked about at school. Some locations and occasions need to be a sanctuary from worldly conditions and ungodly influences, and if sacrament meeting is not such a sanctuary, I don't know what is. This reminds me of an occasion years ago when Michael Medved, the prominent movie critic and radio talk-show host, came to Salt Lake City prior to fulfilling a speaking engagement at BYU. He spoke to the staff of the New Era Magazine. I was invited to sit in as a Church News writer. I clearly remember that Medved, a devout Jew, spoke of having banned television from his apartment because he did not want influences that were inimical to his values invading his home where they would be apt to influence his young children. I remember thinking at the time: Good for him! What a remarkable thing for someone to do who makes his living in part as a movie critic. And I beg to differ: Savanna's talk was, in part at least, sexual in nature. 1
Calm Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 8 hours ago, rockpond said: I haven't seen him referenced or villified (since he wasn't involved) but maybe I'm reading the right news stories. I also am unaware of an email... do you have a link for that? The email was reported in the CNN story linked to a few pages back.
why me Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rain said: I was not comfortable with Savanna's talk, but this is NOT a sexual talk. I think it was. When one says that they are hetero, bi or gay, it implies what sex they are attracted to. And this would be sexual. She was out of line with this talk and if her parents knew, they should have stopped it. There are other ways that one can have a coming out party.
Calm Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tEBUOXm5-A I was wrong, they didn't know the bishop wasn't going to be there. And they are family friends with the bishop. I don't know if it's through the dad's being good friends yet, maybe it states later in the video. But if you start watching around 34 min. in they state that they didn't know he wouldn't be there, but they felt he would be supportive, and felt that he would have let her speak. So they didn't intentionally speak knowing he wouldn't be there afterall. If you watch starting at 28 min. in they discuss about if it was all staged. Looks to me it wasn't. And Savannah just wanted her friend to video it for their Rainbow group, don't know what that is for sure. I guess it's a group that supports LGBT youth that are LDS. As I explained earlier in the thread, Rainbow Mutual is an alternative to church youth group for those who identify as LGBT+. There are multiple groups, if you google "Rainbow Mutual", you should be able to find Facebook pages of these groups.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, why me said: I find her way of dressing interesting. She was wearing a white shirt and tie? Why? And what is the symbol of such a dress? For example, her dress would imply that she is a lesbian who would take on a masculine role. In other words, she would be the husband in a future relationship. Or was her style of dress just a statement for the video? It seems that her testimony was done for shock value and for publicity and to make a point about church policy. I write these things because this is what I would be thinking if I were present in the meeting. I don't think that I would be focusing on my own spirituality. I'm trying not to read too much in to her manner of dress. Though it was a white shirt and tie, it seemed to me quite unlike what a boy or man would be wearing, and it did strike me as feminine, though very prim and proper, like a school-uniform. Were it not for the context of the occasion, I don't think her dress would have drawn my attention as being extraordinary. 2
Recommended Posts