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

[Calm]

 

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They did not know that the Bishop would be absent and they believed that he would have been okay with her testimony. 

However, in the CNN article, the bishop's email is quoted and contains some comments that shows he very much disagrees with how they went about things:

"In the emailed statement to CNN, Law took issue with the recorded video, saying it was unauthorized.

Additionally, he said that a "group of visitors jubilantly left the service. ... Everyone is welcome and understands the standards of decorum and behavior if they decide to participate. It is unfortunate that this group of adults chose to violate them." 

Law said the video was being exploited for "political purposes.""

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Why Not?

The problem was not vigorously advocating for traditional marriage, it was vigorously working to take away peoples civil rights  The church may have every right to push their agenda, but when you do an all out effort to take away people's civil rights, it might have consequences.  

 

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They did not know that the Bishop would be absent and they believed that he would have been okay with her testimony. 

I know.  Which is why I said: 

8 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

After you said: 

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Bishop wasn't even present.  Has he been vilified?  I've only heard him spoken of in positive terms.

The whole start of my question came from this part of Tacenda's post: 

On 6/22/2017 at 0:18 PM, 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. 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. .......

It didn't matter to me if they knew or not for THIS post.  My whole post was going to the idea of WHY it would have bothered me IF they had planned to do it while he was gone with Tacenda's idea in mind and I was trying to figure out why Tacenda thought it would be kinder to do that.  I wanted to make sure she understood why I felt that way and understand why she felt as she did.  

When I saw her answer that she didn't know they didn't know he wouldn't be there, I realized that I had not worded my question well and decided not to pursue it anymore. 

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Hey...I agree  But the scripture quote in a reply to an above post suggested that she had sinned.

[Kenngo1969]

49 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. 

Right.  Set something up at Church.  Invite all your friends.  Tell them to bring their phones so that they can "just happen" to take video of the momentous occasion.  Tell them to share it with their friends, and tell their friends to share it with their friends, and so on, ad infinitum. Then demand that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respond.  Then wait for the news media to cover it.  After all, church leaders have to respond, and the media have to cover it, because it "just happened" to go viral.  (If it doesn't go viral, I guarantee you there's no national exposure.)  

Edited June 24, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

This is such revisionary history.  The church's support of Prop 8 was a direct result of the California Supreme Court decision stating that according to the Constitution of California, gays have the civil right to marry.  Gay marriage was already legal in the state of California.  Prop 8 was a proposition to amend the state constitution.

Honestly, why do we have to have these same conversations over and over again.  Why do Mormons refuse to accept responsibility for it's actions?   Is reality just too difficult for Mormons to deal?  Do you really not know where the conversation is headed when you make such ridiculous claims?  At this point do you want me to quote the California Supreme Court ruling that specifically stated that gay couples have the civil right to marry?

Edited June 24, 2017 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why Not?

The problem was not vigorously advocating for traditional marriage, it was vigorously working to take away peoples civil rights  The church may have every right to push their agenda, but when you do an all out effort to take away people's civil rights, it might have consequences.  

 

There was no civil right to marry who or what one pleases. The definition was eventually changed to include one group, but there are those who still feel their rights are being violated. That fight is not over. As Elder Maxwell said,

Quote

 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.

 

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Hey...I agree  But the scripture quote in a reply to an above post suggested that she had sinned.

I believe you are misconstruing his point. He's saying that we can safely presume that everybody, including this 12 year-old girl who is four years beyond the age of accountability, IS a sinner. The only one we shouldn't presume is a sinner is Christ. Reread what Scott actually said.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  Set something up at Church.  Invite all your friends.  Tell them to bring their phones so that they can "just happen" to take video of the momentous occasion.  Tell them to share it with their friends, and tell their friends to share it with their friends, and so on, ad infinitum. Then demand that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respond.  After all, they have to, because it "just happened" to go viral.  

Are you mad that they shard the video or are you mad that everyone is finding out how church leaders treat 12 year old gay members when they say something the church doesn't like?

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

However, in the CNN article, the bishop's email is quoted and contains some comments that shows he very much disagrees with how they went about things:

"In the emailed statement to CNN, Law took issue with the recorded video, saying it was unauthorized.

Additionally, he said that a "group of visitors jubilantly left the service. ... Everyone is welcome and understands the standards of decorum and behavior if they decide to participate. It is unfortunate that this group of adults chose to violate them." 

Law said the video was being exploited for "political purposes.""

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html

Which, of course, is obvious. It met or exceeded their expectations.The same mentality joyously films the temple ceremony and puts it on the internet as if they had achieved some monumentally difficult and dangerous moral quest.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Bobbieaware said:

I believe you are misconstruing his point. He's saying that we can safely presume that everybody, including this 12 year-old girl who is four years beyond the age of accountability, IS a sinner. The only one we shouldn't presume is a sinner is Christ. Reread what Scott actually said.

I will reread what Scott actually said.  Thank you Bobbieware. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There was no civil right to marry who or what one pleases. The definition was eventually changed to include one group, but there are those who still feel their rights are being violated. That fight is not over. As Elder Maxwell said,

 

Bernard, if I specifically quote the California Supreme Court ruling that clearly stats that gay couples have the civil right to marry in the state of California, will you promise to never make the claim that gay couples had not civil rights taken away from them by the passage of Prop 9?  At some point can we face reality and end these revisions of history?  I mean it is not like this is some nebulous issue.  There is a black and white ruling on this issue by the California Supreme Court.  What more could you possibly need to quit making these claims.

[Calm]

22 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. 

This occurred in one, maybe a few more?, states how many years ago for how many months?

Current 8 year olds weren't even born yet when this occurred.

At the time, what was the language being used in church sponsored advertising?  There are age appropriate ways to talk about same sex marriage and sexuality and ways to speak in general terms that would be appropriate for children to hear.  Can you point to specifics where you see the Church crossing the line?

In the past, I think the terms "lesbian", "homosexual", and "gay" were used generally for those involved in homosexual behaviors and weren't considered appropriate for conversations where children were present.  However, language has changed and culture as well and I think it has become a general usage term.  It is now equivalent, imo, to something like saying "OB-Gyn" and having a kid ask "what's that?".  One could get all flustered trying to imagine how to explain everything this type of doctor does or one can simply approach it in general terms...'they are doctors for women'.  I don't think we are quite there yet in Church culture because we won't accept certain changes to language as appropriate at all (I may say damn at home and everywhere else because I don't see it as invoking deity as it was once meant, but I won't say it at church if I can help it).

I think her speech was age appropriate, but given there were younger kids there and that their parents might have been using their own standards, I think it was unfair for her to not allow for choice of hearing her.  She had a captive audience, in essence.  Talking to the bishop and perhaps having a fireside where she and others who wanted to speak about similar things could present informative talks to families whose parents were prepared would have been much more effective of turning the hearts and minds, imo, of ward members.  Now many get to feel used without having any say in the matter.

It was its purpose and place I find inappropriate.

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is such revisionary history.  The church's support of Prop 8 was a direct result of the California Supreme Court decision stating that according to the Constitution of California, gays have the civil right to marry.  Gay marriage was already legal in the state of California.  Prop 8 was a proposition to amend the state constitution.

Honestly, why do we have to have these same conversations over and over again.  Why do Mormons refuse to accept responsibility for it's actions?   Is reality just too difficult for Mormons to deal?  Do you really not know where the conversation is headed when you make such ridiculous claims?  At this point do you want me to quote the California Supreme Court ruling that specifically stated that gay couples have the civil right to marry?

Not so. It was a legitimate constitutionalfinal issue which was eventually decided by the Holy 9 in DC. It was very much alive and kicking and open to question. We clearly differ in our views. That's fine with me.

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Bernard, if I specifically quote the California Supreme Court ruling that clearly stats that gay couples have the civil right to marry in the state of California, will you promise to never make the claim that gay couples had not civil rights taken away from them by the passage of Prop 9?  At some point can we face reality and end these revisions of history?  I mean it is not like this is some nebulous issue.  There is a black and white ruling on this issue by the California Supreme Court.  What more could you possibly need to quit making these claims.

No. The issue was settled by the Federal Supremes, not the California ones. This is how I see it. Up until that point it was still open to litigation. Whether they were wise and judicious is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not so. It was a legitimate constitutionalfinal issue which was eventually decided by the Holy 9 in DC. It was very much alive and kicking and open to question. We clearly differ in our views. That's fine with me.

What was not so?

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, california boy said:

What was not so?

What you said.

[california boy]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

No. The issue was settled by the Federal Supremes, not the California ones. This is how I see it. Up until that point it was still open to litigation. Whether they werewise and judicious is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours.

 I agree that the issue of gay marriage was still very much open to debate.  That still does not change the fact thet gay couples had the civil right to marry in the state of California.  But the church did not challenge the California State Supreme Court decision through the courts to get a federal ruling Instead they worked to simply take away their civil rights by vote. Many people have really issues with that.  And to now blame them for not liking what the church stands for is a little irresponsible don't you think?  If an organization started putting Mormon civil rights up for a vote, would you have warm and fuzzy feelings for such a group?  

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

This occurred in one, maybe a few more?, states how many years ago for how many months?

Current 8 year olds weren't even born yet when this occurred.

At the time, what was the language being used in church sponsored advertising?  There are age appropriate ways to talk about same sex marriage and sexuality and ways to speak in general terms that would be appropriate for children to hear.  Can you point to specifics where you see the Church crossing the line?

In the past, I think the terms "lesbian", "homosexual", and "gay" were used generally for those involved in homosexual behaviors and weren't considered appropriate for conversations where children were present.  However, language has changed and culture as well and I think it has become a general usage term.  It is now equivalent, imo, to something like saying "OB-Gyn" and having a kid ask "what's that?".  One could get all flustered trying to imagine how to explain everything this type of doctor does or one can simply approach it in general terms...'they are doctors for women'.  I don't think we are quite there yet in Church culture because we won't accept certain changes to language as appropriate at all (I may say damn at home and everywhere else because I don't see it as invoking deity as it was once meant, but I won't say it at church if I can help it).

I think her speech was age appropriate, but given there were younger kids there and that their parents might have been using their own standards, I think it was unfair for her to not allow for choice of hearing her.  She had a captive audience, in essence.  Talking to the bishop and perhaps having a fireside where she and others who wanted to speak about similar things could present informative talks to families whose parents were prepared would have been much more effective of turning the hearts and minds, imo, of ward members.  Now many get to feel used without having any say in the matter.

It was its purpose and place I find inappropriate.

Calm, I will try and find some of the ads that ran during the campaign. I just don't have time now to do the digging.

And I am not sure what you meant by the second paragraph.  Are you saying that it was ok for the church to run ads mentioning gay marriage when the other 7 and 8 year olds were growing up, but now it is inappropriate for 7 and 8 year olds that are that age now?  That is just a weird position to try and defend.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I agree that the issue of gay marriage was still very much open to debate.  That still does not change the fact thet gay couples had the civil right to marry in the state of California.  But the church did not challenge the California State Supreme Court decision through the courts to get a federal ruling Instead they worked to simply take away their civil rights by vote. Many people have really issues with that.  And to now blame them for not liking what the church stands for is a little irresponsible don't you think?  If an organization started putting Mormon civil rights up for a vote, would you have warm and fuzzy feelings for such a group?  

The voice of the people should be heard. In this case, IMO  the judges ruled against religious rights (not just Mormon) and I'm not ok with that. It's water under the bridge. Eventually it will lead to the temple, which effort is now well under way with this testimony video. Biding my time, waiting for the next diktat to come down. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The voice of the people should be heard. In this case, IMO  the judges ruled against religious rights (not just Mormon) and I'm not ok with that. It's water under the bridge. Eventually it will lead to the temple, which effort is now well under way with this testimony video. Biding my time, waiting for the next diktat to come down. 

This is such BS.  If you don't like a state court ruling, you bring the case to the Federal courts.  You don't put someone's civil rights up for a popular vote.  

It is not a religious right to dictate who people marry.  It is these kinds of beliefs that is turning an entire generation away from religion.  They see the injustice of such agendas.  And you don't take away someone else civil rights because you think your civil rights might be violated sometime in the future.  Yet you wonder why so many people have such big issues with the Mormon Church.  

Edited June 24, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And I am not sure what you meant by the second paragraph.  Are you saying that it was ok for the church to run ads mentioning gay marriage when the other 7 and 8 year olds were growing up, but now it is inappropriate for 7 and 8 year olds that are that age now?  That is just a weird position to try and defend.

No, I am not saying that.  I am saying that language used is important as well as details.  I haven't seen any evidence that outside of being political that anything that was encouraged and supported by the Church was inappropriate for church discussion, including in front of kids.  I didn't live in California at the time and haven't watched TV news much for years, so it is quite possible I missed something.  There may have been some on the pro prop 8 side who crossed the line, I would like to see evidence the Church contributed to that before claiming the Church is hypocritical because it supported exposing kids to age inappropriate material during the campaign or were indifferent to it happening.

There are ways to talk about heterosexual marriage that wouldn't lead to curiosity in exploring what that might mean in kids, it seems highly likely the same way used for homosexual relationships would work so that either topic doesn't lead to kids wondering or engaging in age inappropriate behaviour.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is such BS.  ...

And you're genuinely interested in constructive dialogue ... right???  

Just checking.

Quote

It is not a religious right to dictate who people marry. 

And yet the prevailing sociopolitical and legal winds are such that it quickly is becoming the right of the irreligious to dictate religious practice to the devout.  Why do I suspect that, since it's not your ox that's being gored in that case, you're indifferent to that?

Edited June 24, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

7 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.

 

Of course it was planned, did anyone watch the video I've posted, twice now. Savannah planned it, her mother didn't want her to at first but finally gave in because she knew Savannah wanted it. Savannah had a friend video it for the Rainbow group she belonged to for Gay LDS youth. Some may have got wind of it and a few others may have video'd than the New Name Noah dude might have put it out, and I would hope he got the okay from Savannah or her parents. 

But I haven't listened all the way through, maybe they go into that part. So yes, it was planned because Savannah wanted to take a stand. But it was from her, not some large group planning it beforehand. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And yet the prevailing sociopolitical and legal winds are such that it quickly is becoming the right of the irreligious to dictate religious practice to the devout.

Can you elaborate on this? It's not clear to me how religious practice is being dictated.