Should Bishops turn the microphone off on "other" testimonies?

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So were you or the presiding authority outraged that a black person said that he hoped some day he would be able to get married in the temple?  Why was that a beautiful testimony and not this young child expressing her hopes to some day get married the temple?  Both are almost the exact same issue.  Or perhaps you too hope this young girl will be able to marry in the temple to someone she loves.

I was certainly not outraged at his testimony.  His words were perfectly reasonable and did not speak against any commandment.  I believe all were edified.  I understand your point and I have compassion for the person who has such a severe trial in their life.  I know God loves her as should we.  

I see her trial as one of the most difficult crosses to bear in mortality.  Yet it is a cross to be borne rather than laid down. Each of us have many tests in our lives before we reach our destination.  Most have to do with overcoming ourselves.

I believe God gave us scriptures to help us understand the kind of behavior that prepares us to dwell with Him.  He didn't say Thou Shalt be a good person.  He was very specific in what is required of us.  The only way we can equate a same sex relationship to marriage between a man and a woman is to wrest the scriptures.  Where, in all history, are same sex relationships endorsed by God? Please show me.

We don't hear this scripture very often probably because it has the potential of causing so much pain for a person with same sex attraction.  The apostle Paul said in Romans 1: 
21" Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;..."

There is a difference between a man who keeps the Commandments expressing hope, and a girl expressing hope that God will one day change His Commandments so that her desire for sin will not be considered sin.

I may want to drink, smoke, take drugs or view pornography. After all, they are victimless sins, right?  And my desire is so strong.  If I believe this is who I am, should I petition God to change the Word of Wisdom for me and others like me?  Or change the words of the Savior that tell us we must control even our thoughts because "He who has looked upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart..." Or should  I humble myself and sacrifice my desires waiting on God to enlighten my understanding?

The Family Proclamation states clearly principles that are canonized in the scriptures: "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

"WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Trying to get around this through political means is like trying to twist a rope of sand, in my opinion.  God is not mocked.  We may not yet see the reward for our actions. But we do know that "Whatsoever a man Soweth, that shall he also reap."  What manner of men and women ought we to be?  That is certainly for us to choose, isn't it.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Meerkat

[Rain]

21 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the thread about the 12 year-old beehive, juliann wrote...

Many of us have sat through those agonizing testimonies.

• One minute before the bishopric member stands up that one ward member stands up and the Sunday School teachers immediately begin thinking of ways to shorten their lessons.
• Brother Repetition stands up and tells the same stories that he always tells as if he has never told them.

I have never personally witnessed a microphone being turned off on a testimony. I wonder if bishops receive any training on when it is necessary and how to approach the member.

Going back to your OP and title question. I do think there are times when a leader should turn off the mic, but I admit I am uncomfortable giving any specifc instances. Mostly because there may be a time when one specific person says something where it would be good to turn it off and others times when it wouldn't be. You have to take into account the heart of the person, history of the person, seriousness of what was said, history of the ward, people content of the ward and so much more. It would definitely be a time when you would want to know what the Spirit says on the matter. 

I remember sitting in church, very uncomfortable where another sister tore apart another church. I remember thinking how awful it would be if there were visitors present who might be hurt by her words. The bishop did nothing.But I had had a beautiful experience with a non member friend of mind which had strengthened my testimony in the weeks just before. I had heard some quote (President Kimball?) that when you start to preach in F&T the Spirit leaves. So I searched what I thought about saying to make sure it was testimony and not preaching and then shared it. Perhaps the bishop had felt the Spirit prompt him to do nothing and prompted me to share my experience. I don't know, but it is possible.

But then there was the time where 3 members spoke in total; one a full on sermon, one a testimony of some book and one telling how humble "the brethren" thought he was because he was writing a book about Christ and nothing was ever done to bring in the Spirit or limit time etc.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

I was certainly not outraged at his testimony.  His words were perfectly reasonable and did not speak against any commandment.  I believe all were edified.  I understand your point and I have compassion for the person who has such a severe trial in their life.  I know God loves her as should we.  

I see her trial as one of the most difficult crosses to bear in mortality.  Yet it is a cross to be borne rather than laid down. Each of us have many tests in our lives before we reach our destination.  Most have to do with overcoming ourselves.

I believe God gave us scriptures to help us understand the kind of behavior that prepares us to dwell with Him.  He didn't say Thou Shalt be a good person.  He was very specific in what is required of us.  The only way we can equate a same sex relationship to marriage between a man and a woman is to wrest the scriptures.  Where, in all history, are same sex relationships endorsed by God? Please show me.

We don't hear this scripture very often probably because it has the potential of causing so much pain for a person with same sex attraction.  The apostle Paul said in Romans 1: 
21" Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;..."

There is a difference between a man who keeps the Commandments expressing hope, and a girl expressing hope that God will one day change His Commandments so that her desire for sin will not be considered sin.

I may want to drink, smoke, take drugs or view pornography. After all, they are victimless sins, right?  And my desire is so strong.  If I believe this is who I am, should I petition God to change the Word of Wisdom for me and others like me?  Or change the words of the Savior that tell us we must control even our thoughts because "He who has looked upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart..." Or should  I humble myself and sacrifice my desires waiting on God to enlighten my understanding?

The Family Proclamation states clearly principles that are canonized in the scriptures: "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

"WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Trying to get around this through political means is like trying to twist a rope of sand, in my opinion.  God is not mocked.  We may not yet see the reward for our actions. But we do know that "Whatsoever a man Soweth, that shall he also reap."  What manner of men and women ought we to be?  That is certainly for us to choose, isn't it.

 

You have a very different point of view than I have.  The first hard lesson I learned about this issue is that church leaders don't speak for God.  I trusted them and their promise to me that if I just marry a woman, I will no longer be gay.  They promised this in God's name, saying it was his promise, not theirs.  So quite frankly, I don't think church leaders have a clue what God wants for His gay children.

I also don't think church leaders had a clue about how God felt about his black children.  And look how that turned out.  A lot of prohibiting people from temple blessings over what???  Brigham Young thinking he knew the will of God and that dark skinned people are cursed???

As far as the words of Paul, when the church starts following ALL of the words of Paul then I will take his writings more serious.

I am very happy and at peace with God with the decisions I have made.  Something I never felt in my life when trying to follow the words of men claiming to speak for God.  If I am to be condemned by God for finding such happiness and such a loving and caring person to share my life with, then so be it.  I am entirely ready to receive what ever God has in store for me.  I will let Him sort this out and trust him, rather than man.

Like I said, I come from a very different perspective than you.  

Edited June 17, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

the right thing to do was to let her finish. Thousands on Youtube (including some LDS investigators or recent converts) are going to perceive the councelor as an intolerant man. The video now almost has 150 thousand views.  That is more than the population of Provo, Utah. 

Exactly! 

The American Psychological Association stated, "Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion."

Is that good for mental health? Wouldn't it be better to say  "I don't agree with gay acts, but I respect"? 

The video and articles have gone internationally.  Several news outlets in the UK have also picked up the story.  Lots of  comments.  None particularly good.

[SteveO]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have a very different point of view than I have.  The first hard lesson I learned about this issue is that church leaders don't speak for God.  I trusted them and their promise to me that if I just marry a woman, I will no longer be gay.  They promised this in God's name, saying it was his promise, not theirs.  So quite frankly, I don't think church leaders have a clue what God wants for His gay children.

As far as the words of Paul, when the church starts following ALL of the words of Paul then I will take his writings more serious.

I am very happy and at peace with God with the decisions I have made.  Something I never felt in my life when trying to follow the words of men claiming to speak for God.  If I am to be condemned by God for finding such happiness and such a loving and caring person to share my life with, then so be it.  I am entirely ready to receive what ever God has in store for me.  I will let Him sort this out and trust him, rather than man.

Like I said, I come from a very different perspective than you.  

This may be a little off topic...but a very sincere question:

Forget for a moment everything else about the church.  What do you believe Joseph Smith saw in that grove in 1820?

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

This may be a little off topic...but a very sincere question:

Forget for a moment everything else about the church.  What do you believe Joseph Smith saw in that grove in 1820?

At one time I would have answered that question without hesitating.  But quite honestly, the more I know about Joseph Smith, the less I trust his claims that everything he did was God's will,  I find some real problems with his multiple accounts of the first vision.  If I can not trust that modern church leaders speak for God, why would I be able to trust past church leaders speak for God.  What I do trust is the feeling I get from God that I am on the path He wants me to follow.  That is very clear for me.

You made me think of a scripture in D&C 46

 

Quote

 

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

 

I think I am more Verse 13 and less Verse 14.  Some people seem to need to believe on the words of others and have difficulty relying on their own testimony of Christ.  The church is perfect for such people.  Perhaps this is all part of God's plan.

I will say this.  I like a lot of the concepts that Joseph Smith taught.  I have retained a lot of those teachings and continue to practice and believe them in my life.  He is probably the greatest religious leader in recent history.  But do I have a testimony that everything he did came from God.  Not any more.  Too many problems with some of the things he did in the name of God.

Joseph Smith and his claims may very well be the path that God wants many to follow.  I do know that I am not one of those that should continue on that path.  The church is not where I find spirituality in my life.  

Thanks for asking.  That is my sincere answer.  I will try not to derail the thread any more than I have.  

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the thread about the 12 year-old beehive, juliann wrote...

Many of us have sat through those agonizing testimonies.

• One minute before the bishopric member stands up that one ward member stands up and the Sunday School teachers immediately begin thinking of ways to shorten their lessons.
• Brother Repetition stands up and tells the same stories that he always tells as if he has never told them.

I have never personally witnessed a microphone being turned off on a testimony. I wonder if bishops receive any training on when it is necessary and how to approach the member.

I think Bishop's put up with a lot of things they when they wish someone should sit down, or others are speaking about things that have nothing to do with Church meetings. I have never seen anything concerning instructions, but when someone stands up trying to encourage others to leave the Church (and there have been some here who have boasted of using F&T to tell others why they are leaving) then the Bishop (actually the mic button is next to the 1st Counselor) then it should be turned off, and the speaker should be asked to sit down. Members do not come to Church have their beliefs attacked and undermined. 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have a very different point of view than I have.  The first hard lesson I learned about this issue is that church leaders don't speak for God.  I trusted them and their promise to me that if I just marry a woman, I will no longer be gay.  They promised this in God's name, saying it was his promise, not theirs.  So quite frankly, I don't think church leaders have a clue what God wants for His gay children.

I also don't think church leaders had a clue about how God felt about his black children.  

Yes Church leaders are men, and men and all men are flawed, but making a unilateral comment that they (or none) don't speak for God in any and all cases, as your post suggests is over the top. I mean sure, let's point to their errors and forget everything else! That is opportunistic and short sited, but I guess it felt good. I have always thought you were even handed, but even if they took every one of Paul's exactly, you know you would not, despite suggesting that you might. Like most, most do not care and will never believe the words of scripture when it conflicts with their lifestyles. That is the human condition, but at least some try, and try not to cast stones...no matter how good it may feel. 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Yes Church leaders are men, and men and all men are flawed, but making a unilateral comment that they (or none) don't speak for God in any and all cases, as your post suggests is over the top. I mean sure, let's point to their errors and forget everything else! That is opportunistic and short sited, but I guess it felt good. I have always thought you were even handed, but even if they took every one of Paul's exactly, you know you would not, despite suggesting that you might. Like most, most do not care and will never believe the words of scripture when it conflicts with their lifestyles. That is the human condition, but at least some try, and try not to cast stones...no matter how good it may feel. 

I do try to be very even handed.  But he asked me a sincere question.  He deserved my sincere answer.  I am not going to comment on your post though.  I think you need to start another thread if you want me to respond to what you wrote.

[cinepro]

23 hours ago, Thinking said:

In the thread about the 12 year-old beehive, juliann wrote...

Many of us have sat through those agonizing testimonies.

• One minute before the bishopric member stands up that one ward member stands up and the Sunday School teachers immediately begin thinking of ways to shorten their lessons.
• Brother Repetition stands up and tells the same stories that he always tells as if he has never told them.

I have never personally witnessed a microphone being turned off on a testimony. I wonder if bishops receive any training on when it is necessary and how to approach the member.

I thought most people knew the rule was this:

When the bad feeling the ward is getting from the testimony is worse than their relief at not being the person standing at the pulpit speaking, it's time to turn off the mic.

Edited June 17, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you feel about members being called up to the stand to bear a testimony about some specific event or doctrine? "We would now like Brother Brown to come up and bear his testimony about.........."

Personally I think that inappropriate as well. The person in question may not have a testimony of the topic after all.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The video and articles have gone internationally.  Several news outlets in the UK have also picked up the story.  Lots of  comments.  None particularly good.

Unsurprisingly given the way Europe, especially the UK, tend to view religion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I do try to be very even handed.  But he asked me a sincere question.  He deserved my sincere answer.  I am not going to comment on your post though.  I think you need to start another thread if you want me to respond to what you wrote.

You did respond, but what would that thread be entitled, if you world rather respond in another thread? Tell me and I will do so...

[Duncan]

Here's a  related question, what does anybody do if the presiding leader says something inappropriate, do we are just have to sit there and take it? I've had that twice happen, does someone else shut the mic off?

[carbon dioxide]

I personally think that the Church should do away with sacrament testimony meeting and instead replace it with a testimony meeting in Sunday school class.  I believe more would do it in a smaller, quieter setting. 

[rpn]

I like to hope that if I'd been bishop, I would have stood after the child was done, at the end of the meeting and taught the correct principles, including that no one with same gender attraction should walk the walk in loneliness because everyone in that ward would be walking with them, helping them be strong in the challenges that face them, genuinely loving them, and even hugging them if that is what she wants or needs.  That it is possible to love and nurture and serve our brothers and sisters who think, act, believe, sin  differently than we do, and to make the ward a community of people who love Jesus Christ and seek always to do His will, and that the bishop expected this ward to rise to the challenge in doing so.

[Rivers]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 6:32 PM, bluebell said:

We have lots of them every sunday.  It takes the people longer to walk up to the stand than to share what they are going to say and they don't waste any words.  "I know this church is true.  I know that Jesus is the Christ.  I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet.  In the name of......Amen."  That's it.  Over and over and over again sometimes.  

They are so fast and so devoid of context that they are hard to listen to for very long.  And they become interchangeable with each other. No judgement on the people who bear their testimonies like that.  It takes real guts to get up there and I admire every person who does it.  Those kinds of testimonies just don't do anything for me personally.

Sounds a bit like Rameumptom testimonies.

[Rivers]

I wonder if it would be a good idea to assign people to give their testimonies.  This provide some variety to wards in which the same ol' people get up every month.

[JAHS]

If people (especially parents of young children) would just follow the counsel already given on this:

“In the past the First Presidency has expressed concern that in some instances, members who desire to bear their testimonies in fast and testimony meeting do not have the opportunity to do so. Bishoprics are again encouraged to help all people learn to express a brief, heartfelt testimony of our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, and the truths of the restored gospel so that more members may have the opportunity to participate.

”Parents and teachers should help children learn what a testimony is and when it is appropriate for them to express it. It may be best to have younger children learn to share their testimonies at such times as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so in fast and testimony meeting."

Small children who get up and say the exact same thing every other kid says (or what their big brother whispers in their ear) have not yet learned what a testimony is.

[Meerkat]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You have a very different point of view than I have.  The first hard lesson I learned about this issue is that church leaders don't speak for God.  I trusted them and their promise to me that if I just marry a woman, I will no longer be gay.  They promised this in God's name, saying it was his promise, not theirs.  So quite frankly, I don't think church leaders have a clue what God wants for His gay children.

I also don't think church leaders had a clue about how God felt about his black children.  And look how that turned out.  A lot of prohibiting people from temple blessings over what???  Brigham Young thinking he knew the will of God and that dark skinned people are cursed???

As far as the words of Paul, when the church starts following ALL of the words of Paul then I will take his writings more serious.

I am very happy and at peace with God with the decisions I have made.  Something I never felt in my life when trying to follow the words of men claiming to speak for God.  If I am to be condemned by God for finding such happiness and such a loving and caring person to share my life with, then so be it.  I am entirely ready to receive what ever God has in store for me.  I will let Him sort this out and trust him, rather than man.

Like I said, I come from a very different perspective than you.  

Thanks for your response.  I agree with your statement " I am entirely ready to receive what ever God has in store for me.  I will let Him sort this out and trust him, rather than man."  That's how I feel about my own salvation.  Whatever I get is way beyond what I deserve no matter where I end up.  Also, many of the issues are so complicated, God will need to sort them out. We justify the choices we make as best we can.  I can't answer for what I would do in your circumstances.  The Scriptures are full of examples, people who have had harder trials than mine. That's where I go to try to support my choices. My sincere question is where in the scriptures, ancient or modern revelation, can I find God endorsing or approving a same sex relationship?  

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Meerkat

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

............................................... people using the opportunity to intentionally disrupt the meeting.

Let's assume someone is intentionally disrupting the meeting. Let's say they swear or use vulgar language. Or they are using extreme anti-Mormon rhetoric. What would or should the person presiding do? What if the person refuses to step down? Do we need police protection at F&T meetings? .................................................

It is illegal to disrupt Church meetings, and police can be (and have been) called, and people can have "stay away orders" placed on them in order to prevent future disruptions.  However, it so seldom seems to happen that it is amazing.

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you feel about members being called up to the stand to bear a testimony about some specific event or doctrine? "We would now like Brother Brown to come up and bear his testimony about.........."

 

I like your idea, but it may be best to open the topic to the floor first before calling on a specific member or members. Anyway each testimony meeting could have 3 or so topics for members to address. Every few months a bishop may also choose to have the floor wide open. I think your idea is at least worth some experimentation.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

the right thing to do was to let her finish. Thousands on Youtube (including some LDS investigators or recent converts) are going to perceive the councelor as an intolerant man. The video now almost has 150 thousand views.  That is more than the population of Provo, Utah. 

Exactly! 

The American Psychological Association stated, "Some report difficulty coping with intense guilt over the failure to live a virtuous life and inability to stop committing unforgivable sins, as defined by their religion."

Is that good for mental health? Wouldn't it be better to say  "I don't agree with gay acts, but I respect"? 

Yes, we need to be tolerant of diverse lifestyles.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Personally I think that inappropriate as well. The person in question may not have a testimony of the topic after all.

That is a possible risk. Something similar happened in a recent stake conference.

My BYU bishop regularly called people out of the congregation to speak without preparation. After a few meetings people started to come prepared.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[longview]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, we need to be tolerant of diverse lifestyles.

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

― Alexander Pope

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.” 
― Alexander Pope

 

“To err is human, to forgive, divine.” 
― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

 

“Charms strike the sight, but merit wins the soul.” 
― Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock

 

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” 
― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism

Edited June 18, 2017 by longview