Calm Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, why me said: I find her way of dressing interesting. It is inappropriate to dissect a youth's clothing in such a fashion. If you are concerned about sexualizing children, then avoiding this kind of thing would be wise. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Withdrawn. Too much voyeurism going on here, and I don't want to get caught up in it. Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 3 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. I completely agree with your post. I am not willing to speculate what is in someone's heart. No one. Not the counselor in the stake president, not the 12 year old. Not the mother. Not the person who video taped the testimony. No one on this board knows what was in any of their hearts. 2
USU78 Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: She has not sinned. How in the world would you know whether she has or not?
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 2 hours ago, why me said: 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. Well I guess there are 4 people on the board here that know what was in this young girls heart. Aren't you guys special.
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, cinepro said: 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. It's a fine line we will be towing in the future. Hopefully our church meetings will not be used to advocate for la cause du jour. Edited June 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) On 6/16/2017 at 4:08 PM, gopher said: What would the reaction be if the girl said she is a lesbian but intends to remain faithful to her testimony of the restored gospel and keep the law of chastity as it is currently taught in the church? That would take even more courage, imo. Unfortunately, it would likely result in vicious attacks on her by those opposed to the church. Reading the comments on youtube, huffpo,fark,etc is depressing. The level of hatred towards the LDS church and its members is appalling. I hope it doesn't lead to violence. This week a man shot a congressman and others nearby because of his hatred towards them. I have two friends (one man, one woman) who choose to live as you describe. Other situations have ended with people making that kind of choice being rejected and labeled Oreos or Apples. It's amazing to me how much anger and violence this issue engenders. (Pun warning) The recent redefinition of marriage opened the floodgates and more will follow.The years ahead will not be pleasant for the Church and its members, I'm afraid. Elder Maxwell saw this coming.... Quote Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people’s opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened. In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat’s burden, you see. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_meeting-challenges-today/ It has also become the burden of some of our brothers and sisters. Edited June 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui 2
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 2 hours ago, why me said: Since it was recorded and then leaked, I believe it was planned. Let's be clear, it is pure speculation on your part. First, one should not leak a video statement by a child when it comes to their sexuality. Announcing that you are gay and want to get married is no different than any other beehive saying that she hopes to marry a return missionary some day. Would you call that sexualizing? A beehive wanting to marry in the temple is not sexual exploitation. It is a common subject talked about with children that age. What you have a problem with is who she wants to marry, not whether she wants to marry. Well guess what. She is gay. Who do you expect her to want to marry? 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. How can you assume anything. Do you know what is in their hearts? 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour 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? Oh please, every 7 or 8 year old knows what gay is, thanks in a large part because of the church making such a big deal out of Prop 8. Church members funded over 20 million dollars advertising gay marriage. Were you worried about 7 and 8 year olds when that was going on? 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour 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. Can you honestly tell me you have never heard a speaker in a Mormon church mention gay marriage? Did you stand up and object when that happened? Were you concerned about the sanctity of church worship service attended by people of all ages then???????? 1
Oliblish Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, why me said: 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. Does implying what sex you are attracted to make a talk sexual? If a deacon mentioned during a talk that he hoped to marry a woman in the temple after returning from his mission, would that be a sexual talk?
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour 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. Was there anything wrong with the shoes she was wearing? How about how she parted her hair? I guess you can tell by now, I find your comments totally inappropriate, filled with speculation and assumptions that quite frankly are just fault finding and not based on any kind of fair objective criteria. Edited June 23, 2017 by california boy 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, california boy said: Oh please, every 7 or 8 year old knows what gay is, thanks in a large part because of the church making such a big deal out of Prop 8. Not so. Thanks in toto to American pop culture and media. The issue has been unrelentlessly crammed down our collective throats. 2
Jeanne Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 42 minutes ago, USU78 said: How in the world would you know whether she has or not? How in the world do you know anybody as sinned that gets up and bears a testimony? How do either of us know? So..we assume the good in people.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Can you honestly tell me you have never heard a speaker in a Mormon church mention gay marriage? Did you stand up and object when that happened? Were you concerned about the sanctity of church worship service attended by people of all ages then???????? No, I don't remember it being brought up in sacrament meeting, even during the height of the Prop 8 campaign or in the in the year the Supreme Court ruled on it. But it wouldn't matter if I had. I would still disapprove of it, regardless of the number of superfluous question marks you put at the end of your sentence. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, california boy said: Oh please, every 7 or 8 year old knows what gay is, thanks in a large part because of the church making such a big deal out of Prop 8. This is rank falsehood. Quote Church members funded over 20 million dollars advertising gay marriage. Were you worried about 7 and 8 year olds when that was going on? There's no reason that would mean 7- and 8-year-olds would have to know or even be interested. But even if they were, that would be no excuse for defiling sacrament meeting with chatter that is all-too-inappropriate for children. Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
rockpond Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 7 hours ago, CV75 said: From the NYT article: "A spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had no comment." I'm wondering at what level they asked. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/mormon-girl-gay-speech.html I'm not sure why the Church would comment on a viral video, but here's an example on a youth-related issue where they have: https://www.lds.org/church/news/videos-of-72-hour-service-challenge-go-viral?lang=eng The fact that it is a viral video isn't the reason I feel they ought to comment. It's that it is something that happened in one of our sacrament meetings and has gained national exposure. Would be nice to hear the Brethren's thoughts on a matter that seems to be important to a lot of people and occurred as a part of our services. 1
rockpond Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Rain said: I thought the relationship was that Savannah's best friend's dad was the bishop, not that the dad was best friends with the bishop. But either way, I think he was put in a predicament. It just puts him in a different one depending on if he were there or not. Did you imagine this happening to you, where you are the leader and someone waits till you are out of town to speak rules again what you support? If you did and you still felt this would have been a kindness then I am ok with your thoughts because we are all different. I just have a hard time seeing how people would feel that way. I may have to ask my son as he has some rather unique ways of thinking, how he would feel. -------- For those who may not have noticed the start of this line of conversation, this started with the idea of what if the family did know the bishop would be out of town, not that the family did know. They did not know that the Bishop would be absent and they believed that he would have been okay with her testimony.
CV75 Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: The fact that it is a viral video isn't the reason I feel they ought to comment. It's that it is something that happened in one of our sacrament meetings and has gained national exposure. Would be nice to hear the Brethren's thoughts on a matter that seems to be important to a lot of people and occurred as a part of our services. Oh... is that what some people consider transparency?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: How in the world do you know anybody as sinned that gets up and bears a testimony? How do either of us know? So..we assume the good in people. We look for the good in people but we don't assume anybody is without sin. That condition applies to only one person who has ever lived in mortality. 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Not so. Thanks in toto to American pop culture and media. The issue has been unrelentlessly crammed down our collective throats. My point is, the Mormon Church has done its share of cramming their beliefs down people's throats. Members of the church spent over 20 million dollars cramming their beliefs down our collective throats. It is all this hypocrisy that is really irritating me. I am not saying the church did not have a right to cram their beliefs down our collective throats, it is just the kind of statement you make is thoughtless. As long as it is your ideas you don't mind it one bit.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: The fact that it is a viral video isn't the reason I feel they ought to comment. It's that it is something that happened in one of our sacrament meetings and has gained national exposure. Would be nice to hear the Brethren's thoughts on a matter that seems to be important to a lot of people and occurred as a part of our services. National exposure does not make it something that would warrant comment by the Brethren. Beyond satisfying the prurient curiosity of some I can't think of any useful purpose that would be served by it. 1
california boy Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This is rank falsehood. There's no reason that would mean 7- and 8-year-olds would have to know or even be interested. But even if they were, that would be no excuse for defiling sacrament meeting with chatter that is all-too-inappropriate for children. Rank falsehood? Are you completely disavowing any church involvement for the passage of Prop 8 which brought gay marriage into hundreds of news broadcasts up to and including a ruling by the Supreme Court? Do you think all the 7 and8 year olds were shuffled out of the room while those 20 million dollars worth of TV ads were broadcast? Unbelievable. Edited June 23, 2017 by california boy
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, california boy said: My point is, the Mormon Church has done its share of cramming their beliefs down people's throats. Members of the church spent over 20 million dollars cramming their beliefs down our collective throats. It is all this hypocrisy that is really irritating me. I am not saying the church did not have a right to cram their beliefs down our collective throats, it is just the kind of statement you make is thoughtless. As long as it is your ideas you don't mind it one bit. Saying the Church is responsible is thoughtful? I don't agree that vigorously advocating for traditional marriage is hypocritical in any way. No pop culture/media sources go out of their way to include a positive Mormon character or situation in their productions. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2017 Posted June 23, 2017 The Church's support for Prop 8 was the result of unrelenting media and political pressure advocating the redefinition of marriage. The same pressure will now be brought to bear on the Church's policies and doctrines regarding sexuality. 1
Recommended Posts