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

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Has everyone finished with their virtue signalling?

Here is what happened, apparently. A young woman made a statement in sacrament meeting. Her parents helped her write it. And then filmed it for all to see. That is significant, like it or not. I'm trying to imagine a situation in which I would film my child's alleged greatest humiliation and then put it out on the internet. I don't for a minute believe that these parents would, either. Which is why I'm pretty darn sure it wasn't. 

Now if this had been any other topic, say, she got up to advocate for nudist colonies since that is how God made us, there would be no sympathy. There would quite rightly be shock and disappointment with any parent that would set their child up to be shamed. No one would single out one church guy in one ward for a tongue lashing. But, since this really was a political statement disguised as a testimony about a hot button topic, there are other things at play. And other rewards for them and others. Like the opportunity to climb onto the stage and virtue signal.

So I'm not buying the look what they did to my child stuff. I'm not buying that she was harmed, quite the opposite.  I suspect she is quite proud of what she did and I'm not saying that is wrong, either. She and her parents are now on stage with a growing fan base. Those being scorned are the church people trying to control their own space. There just might be some gaslighting going on.

So let's not confuse the terrible conundrum that she represents with what this family did. Or that there is a very real and painful situation apart from what she did or didn't do.

Which leaves us at the real topic. What does a church do when the very basis and purpose of their church is the joining of a man and a woman. 

 

That's an excellent point.  When you share something on the internet in the hope that it goes viral, you kind of give up your claim to having been embarrassed by it.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

Which leaves us at the real topic. What does a church do when the very basis and purpose of their church is the joining of a man and a woman.

Two choices - change the doctrine or lose members/potential members who cannot accept the doctrine.
Really, what other choice is there?

And while the momentum isn't moving as fast as some would like to claim, I think we can all see where it is heading.
It seems we have many among us who would like to see the Church become a non-denominational all inclusive group dedicated only to praising Christ in every meeting.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the sense she was using it in is pretty clear.  Love = acceptance:

The person you were quoting, Jane Doe, did not seem to be using it in the sense of treating all behavior as acceptable. Thus my point that there was an equivocation going on. (There often is in these discussion of love for some reason) You're right that the person in the film was saying she was acceptable the way she was and no change was necessary. But you were quoting Jane Doe who was using it in this other sense. Thus there was an equivocation between Jane Doe and the Savannah in the video clip.

Quote

Also, you'll notice that President Nelson addresses both "love" and "blessings" separately.  The "love" itself is labeled as "conditional", not just the blessings that follow that love.

Yes, but it's clear that he's addressing a particular sense of love. That's why he gives examples of fallacious reasoning. There are other conference talks where the unconditional sense of love is talked about. Some (not you) portray this as a contradiction when it's merely due to English using the same word to covey these different meanings.

Quote

Heck, just look at the actual act of getting up in F&T meeting and saying those things.  Does the LDS conception of God present Him as the kind of being that would be looking down on that meeting (and Savannah's claims) from on high and being pleased?  Forget about the ward members who heard that speech.  Do you think Savannah's bold action was enough to change God's mind on the subject?

I'm sure God, who has a much better idea of what's going on than any of us, has pretty developed views on all this. I'd love to hear what they are. I can't see those views being changed by this or many similar conflicts. (There was something quite similar on T&S a couple of weeks ago)

Quote

As I mentioned before, this is just a clear example of the head-on collision course between the Church's policies, teachings and doctrines regarding "same-sex attraction" and the narrative presented by the world and gay people themselves.  Savannah said several things that are a total repudiation of current LDS teachings, policies and doctrines

Yes, and it's also clear that many sympathetic to LGBT struggles think that the solution is that homosexuality will be treated like heterosexuality and that same sex sealings will be done in the temple. Typically they do this without engaging with the huge theological conflicts this presents. As you note this is a repudiation of major teachings and doctrines. Now if teachings are wrong then God will correct them eventually. However in this case it's pretty foundational beliefs about the nature of spirits, the nature of marriage, and the nature of divinization.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Two choices - change the doctrine or lose members/potential members who cannot accept the doctrine.
Really, what other choice is there?

 

Explain the doctrine more thoroughly and convincingly without making it about gays. My concern is with anything that might remove woman from creation in any situation. It is a philosophical concern but one I don't see discussed. What is the natural consequence of eliminating the woman half of an eternal marriage? What does it say about women if men think another man can be substituted for a woman. Talking about eternity here.

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's fair. Many LGBT youth wish they weren't that way. Indeed dealing with it is what makes it so hard for many. But I bet that if there were a pill that would change things for them many would take it. (Many wouldn't of course -- but since there's no pill coming the question is moot)

Again I think you have to keep in mind that attraction is not the same as sinful action. That's just as true for LGBT as it is for heterosexual youth. The reality is that youth shouldn't be sexually active. The big problem is that for heterosexuals there's a clear path to having a meaningful, spiritual sexual life in the future. There appears to be no such clear path for gay youth. So it's understandable that they ask what God's plan for them is and it's tragic that we have no answer. 

Many people (not just gays) have major sinful inclinations in their lives too -- thorns in the flesh -- that they wish were taken away.   However, God does not take away all thorns in our lives, for whatever the individual reason may be.  We can't give a blanket response to a person's individual trials.   

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's an excellent point.  When you share something on the internet in the hope that it goes viral, you kind of give up your claim to having been embarrassed by it.

More than just share it. Typically it's seen as incredibly inappropriate to film during sacrament. That the parents did this strongly suggests more planning to all this. I bet they would have shared it had the Stake President not intervened. While I don't think the Stake President handled it well, we also don't know the context for all this and whether leadership had been meeting with this family prior to this. My guess is that this wasn't spur of the moment and there's much more going on than we are privy to. Certainly I'd not have acted the way the Stake President did. I think it would have been better for the person presiding to simply have come up afterwards and clarified the doctrine in a way that was still positive for the young woman. 

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Many people (not just gays) have major sinful inclinations in their lives too -- thorns in the flesh -- that they wish were taken away.   However, God does not take away all thorns in our lives, for whatever the individual reason may be.  We can't give a blanket response to a person's individual trials.   

The difference is that typically there's a path that they can choose that is righteous. In this case there's not. That makes a big difference. Effectively they are being told that all the things that are emphasized so much in church such as eternal marriage, are cut off for them. It's completely understandable why many see that as devastating. What the Church asks is clear though. And some people manage to stay faithful. But I think the rest of us should appreciate just what is being asked and how it is different from most other trials.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Explain the doctrine more thoroughly and convincingly without making it about gays. My concern is with anything that might remove woman from creation in any situation. It is a philosophical concern but one I don't see discussed. What is the natural consequence of eliminating the woman half of an eternal marriage? What does it say about women if men think another man can be substituted for a woman. Talking about eternity here.

Well, that's ok then.  In the context of this thread it would appear that it is the male half that is being removed from creation. 

[cinepro]

For those that wanted to hear Savannah on a podcast, here you go:

iliketolookforrainbows.com/2017/05/29/episode-2-savannahs-story/

 

[cinepro]

Another interesting tidbit.  Someone who was there says that after Savannah spoke, the conducting authority said that he would be choosing who would bear testimonies for the remainder of the time.  I wonder if the concern is that you would start having other ward members get up to express public support for Savannah, or maybe just more pre-planned stuff?

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Another interesting tidbit.  Someone who was there says that after Savannah spoke, the conducting authority said that he would be choosing who would bear testimonies for the remainder of the time.  I wonder if the concern is that you would start having other ward members get up to express public support for Savannah, or maybe just more pre-planned stuff?

I suspect he had a reasonable concern people would start weighing in on the conflict from both sides leading to conflict in the ward. It seems reasonable to fear that this was preplanned and there were outside agitators with an intention of filming everything. In any case worrying about things becoming worse seems a reasonable worry. Again, my sense is that there's more to the story than we've been told as well.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The difference is that typically there's a path that they can choose that is righteous. In this case there's not. That makes a big difference.

Not really.   For example the burdens of pride, ego, anger, PTSD, other mental illnesses, abuse, etc.  These are all burdens that people have to bear, frequently for life.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, that's ok then.  In the context of this thread it would appear that it is the male half that is being removed from creation. 

I think saying one of the genders is being removed seems a bit much. However clearly the need for eternal gender becomes problematized, if these people's views were accepted. The doctrine of pre-mortal gender seems deeply problematic as does the doctrine that to become like God requires a male and female pared together. It also clearly leads to the quite reasonable question of whether there is a mother in heaven at all. As I said I think people pushing a theology of gay marriage haven't thought through all the implications.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not really.   For example the burdens of pride, ego, anger, PTSD, other mental illnesses, abuse, etc.  These are all burdens that people have to bear, frequently for life.  

Yes, but there is a clear path of behavior for them even if they struggle to fulfill it. In this case there's no way to have a loving heterosexual marriage. Now of course this isn't just true for gays. There are people with zero sex drive and no sexual attraction for anyone. Those people have just as problematic of a time.

The problem is that if you say homosexuality is just like pride, anger etc. then what you're saying is that they should marry a member of the opposite sex despite the problems. Yet that almost always leads to horrible situations and is cruel to the person in the relationship who often isn't gay.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

This wasn't just a testimony.  The fact that it was videoed tells that it was more.  And how many people have you seen write down their testimonies before bearing them for F&T meeting? In 49 years I have seen it all of once or maybe twice, but I can only remember the one time. This is not just a testimony.  It is a set up. THAT is what is heartbreaking - why would someone put a child in this position? (unless a friend was the one who videoed it and not an adult). 

 

My daughter, while young, wrote hers down because she was nervous giving it. 

[Jane_Doe]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but there is a clear path of behavior for them even if they struggle to fulfill it. In this case there's no way to have a loving heterosexual marriage. Now of course this isn't just true for gays. There are people with zero sex drive and no sexual attraction for anyone. Those people have just as problematic of a time.

The problem is that if you say homosexuality is just like pride, anger etc. then what you're saying is that they should marry a member of the opposite sex despite the problems. Yet that almost always leads to horrible situations and is cruel to the person in the relationship who often isn't gay.

I did NOT say the bolded part.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  

No, a person who is gay should not automatically say "I'll marry an opposite sex person anyways".  No!  I'm not saying that by any stretch of the imagination!  

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Then let the parents be accountable...she was the one at the pulpit...and an automatic judgement took place. 

Yup!!

[Anijen]

Just my two cents worth of opinion.

• Res Gestae or conduct showing a consciousness of guilt (things that raised a red flag for me)
• The vocabulary, content, and context appears to be from an adult, not a young lady. When I first watched I thought she was younger than 12, but the subject matter was adult.
• Writing it down, is uncommon and the few times I have seen reading of a testimony it was because the bearer had a language gap, or was deaf, or similar reason.
• Having it recorded. This shows that it leans heavily on a an agenda and of deliberate intent and not spontaneous.
• Recorded and published on YouTube. Shows that the testimony was not the original intent or motive of her testimony.

 

What would I have done:

I would have let her talk, finish her testimony and at the end of the Fast and testimony meeting I would thank everyone for bearing their testimonies and not mention hers or anyone else for that matter. I have heard too many rambling testimonies, lectures, travel-logs, and down right condemnations if they don't get stopped I am not stopping hers (even though I felt it was inappropriate for a testimony).

Edited June 15, 2017 by Anijen

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Here's my perspective on the "God made me this way" arguments-- 

I have a sister who was born with an absolutely nasty temper.  Growing up she would yell and hit and scream and do all sorts of horrible things.  She could say "God made this way, it's how I feel, so I'm going to keep hitting and that's something to celebrate", but I don't think anyone would agree with that statement.  Rather, we (including herself) have tried to teach her control of her emotions and the higher route.  It's been a life long battle, and nearing the age of 30 she still battles her temper regularly- this inclination for sin is part of who she is.  But she should keep trying to overcome this natural-man part of herself, and through doing so she's become a much better person.   Her story of conquering this (or at least trying) is something to be celebrated.

Likewise I could have written an identical paragraph about me and my own inclination to sin (I can be SO prideful).  I could have written it about my friend's tendency towards laziness.  I could have written it about another friend's battle with heterosexual lust and cheating.  And it is the same for anyone with homosexual inclination.  These sinful inclinations are part of us, often lifelong parts of us.  It is our fighting these inclinations and becoming better people (through and focused on Christ) that should be celebrate, not caving in to sin because "it's part of me".  

Does the church stop those with (anger, lazy or being prideful attributes) from joining the church if their married parents are also dealing with the same attributes?

Edited June 15, 2017 by Tacenda

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Another interesting tidbit.  Someone who was there says that after Savannah spoke, the conducting authority said that he would be choosing who would bear testimonies for the remainder of the time.  I wonder if the concern is that you would start having other ward members get up to express public support for Savannah, or maybe just more pre-planned stuff?

My concern would have been for that and for those anxious to call her a sinner (no matter how slyly,) like we see here. I think out of this whole mess, that was probably the only wise decision. 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I did NOT say the bolded part.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  

No, a person who is gay should not automatically say "I'll marry an opposite sex person anyways".  No!  I'm not saying that by any stretch of the imagination!  

Then you agree that it is not like those other things. I wasn't saying you were saying they should marry. I was saying that if you think there's no difference then marriage should be fine. i.e. to argue that you actually thought there was a difference.

After all having an anger issue you are working for doesn't preclude you from marriage. If you think they shouldn't be married that's a pretty huge difference.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Danzo]

This thread brings back fond memories of mission when a homeless man who referred to himself as "Zeus" and his friend "Michael the Archangel" used to crash Fast and Testimony Meeting. He would get up on the stand and explain that the plan was for god to eat his children.  I remember the Branch President getting into a shoving match with this man.  Us missionaries were assigned to forceably remove the man from the meeting.

Fun times.

This case mild in comparison.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This thread brings back fond memories of mission when a homeless man who referred to himself as "Zeus" and his friend "Michael the Archangel" used to crash Fast and Testimony Meeting. He would get up on the stand and explain that the plan was for god to eat his children.  I remember the Branch President getting into a shoving match with this man.  Us missionaries were assigned to forceably remove the man from the meeting.

Fun times.

This case mild in comparison.

Honestly this isn't even as bad all things considered as the guy in one ward who had what I'll euphemistically call autoerotic habit problems. For some reason he seemed to want to discuss this regularly in fast and testimony meeting in lurid detail. Although surprisingly the Bishop never stopped him.

Edited June 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jane_Doe]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Then you agree that it is not like those other things. I wasn't saying you were saying they should marry. I was saying that if you think there's no difference then marriage should be fine. i.e. to argue that you actually thought there was a difference.

After all having an anger issue you are working for doesn't preclude you from marriage. If you think they shouldn't be married that's a pretty huge difference.

What the???

I'm sorry, but other inclinations from sin (besides SSA) can indeed preclude you from marriage.  Uncontrolled anger issues can indeed preclude marriage and/or end existing marriages.  Ask any person who's seen anger fueled abuse.  Pride and egotism can keep a person from marriage.  Laziness can keep a person from marriage.  Mental illness can keep a person from marriage.  

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My daughter, while young, wrote hers down because she was nervous giving it. 

Seems reasonable to me.