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

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No, that only helps the critics, especially if they are being recorded. Like I said in the other thread

"I think it was a bait. The counselor took the bait by shutting down the mic, and that simply doesn't look good in the eyes of most Americans. Now the video is going viral because of that" 

Please 

I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say.  The members present aren't fools, know that she is a fellow Mormon, and probably sympathize with her dilemma.  And, after all, it is not a sin to feel SSA.  The sin is in acting upon it sexually.

[sheilauk]

6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

No, that only helps the critics, especially if they are being recorded. Like I said in the other thread

"I think it was a bait. The counselor took the bait by shutting down the mic, and that simply doesn't look good in the eyes of most Americans. Now the video is going viral because of that" 

Please 

If it was bait, it would have been circulating whatever happened.   We should strive to do what we think is right regardless of whether or not someone is watching or what the world will think.

Edited June 17, 2017 by sheilauk

[Bernard Gui]

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.........."

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say.  The members present aren't fools, know that she is a fellow Mormon, and probably sympathize with her dilemma.  And, after all, it is not a sin to feel SSA.  The sin is in acting upon it sexually.

Then you don't believe she crossed the line of propriety for what constitutes appropriate sacrament meeting commentary when she said she's looking forward to the day when she can marry (I.e. deliberately place herself in a relationship arrangement where she will be able to act out freely on her homosexual sexual desires)? Should the Church change protocol and allow our fast and testimony meetings to become freewheeling public forums where those who are critical of the Church can get up any time they want and "testify" that they know by the inspiration of the Spirit that many of the the teachings of the Church are out of step with God's will? Could an open, permissive and democratic approach to testimony bearing become a net benefit to the Church?

Edited June 17, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then you don't believe she crossed the line of propriety for what constitutes appropriate sacrament meeting commentary when she said she's looking forward to the day when she can marry (I.e. deliberately place herself in a relationship arrangement where she will be able to act out freely on her homosexual sexual desires)? Should the Church change protocol and allow our fast and testimony meetings to become freewheeling public forums where those who are critical of the Church can get up any time the want and "testify" that the know by the inspiration of the Spirit that many of the the teachings of the Church are out of step with God's will? Could an open, permissive and democratic approach to testimony bearing become a net benefit to the Church?

I'm not so worried about "net benefit to the Church," and (in any case) the leaders at Church HQ don't micromanage what goes on in F&T mtgs.  The girl is only 12, and the members of her ward aren't suddenly going to apostatize just because she made some heartfelt comments which they know are not doctrinal.  It would have been best for the bishop or stake pres to wait until later and have a frank conversation with her and her parents about the true nature of F&T mtgs.  The same applies to the parents videotaping of the event, which they knew was wrong, and may be deserving of Church trial.

I have already said on this thread that reading prepared comments during F&T is inappropriate, regardless of intent.  One should speak extemporaneously as moved by the Spirit.  If one cannot at least do that, then a few innocuous words of gratitude for the blessings of the Lord might be O.K.  But there is no reason to cut the mic or get up and declare true doctrine so as to protect the largely "ignorant" members from some socio-political rant.  That is nonsense.  Best to just declare the neutrality of the Church on political claims and positions, and to leave it at that.  Actively censoring the testimonies in F&T mtgs would be the worst route to follow.  My ward is composed of members with a lot of life experience, and are not easily offended by dumb or offbeat comments.  They are likely to say, "This too shall pass."  Let the Holy Spirit guide, Bobbie, even if it seems to you to be too "open, permissive and democratic" in some odd political sense.  After all, the Holy Spirit may want something said which some people definitely don't want to hear.

[Bobbieaware]

My use of the word 'democratic' was in the small-d, non-political sense. I hunderstand the mother is a bitter former member, so there was likely little, if any, concern on her part that she was violating Church rules by making the video.

[california boy]

I feel that who ever is presiding over any meeting should have control of what happens in that meeting.  Certainly turning off a mike is one of the tools to maintain that control.  Perhaps it is the tool of last resort.  And that might be the problem.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then you don't believe she crossed the line of propriety for what constitutes appropriate sacrament meeting commentary when she said she's looking forward to the day when she can marry (I.e. deliberately place herself in a relationship arrangement where she will be able to act out freely on her homosexual sexual desires)? Should the Church change protocol and allow our fast and testimony meetings to become freewheeling public forums where those who are critical of the Church can get up any time the want and "testify" that the know by the inspiration of the Spirit that many of the the teachings of the Church are out of step with God's will? Could an open, permissive and democratic approach to testimony bearing become a net benefit to the Church?

Would you feel this same outrage if a black member stood up in testimony in the 70's and said that they hoped to one day be married in the temple?  How about if they stood up in 1870 and said that?

(Remember the doctrine according to Brigham Young was that ALL the sons of Adam would have the opportunity to receive the priesthood before any black person would.)  

[Meerkat]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you feel this same outrage if a black member stood up in testimony in the 70's and said that they hoped to one day be married in the temple?  How about if they stood up in 1870 and said that?

Good point.  Being of a different race isn't a sin.

My Mother said she could never join a Church that wouldn't give blacks the priesthood.  When our youngest daughter was blessed, we invited my parents to attend. A black man I had recently baptized stood and bore his testimony.  He said "I don't know why I can't have the priesthood.  All I know is I read the Book of Mormon, and I know it's true.  I know Joseph Smith was a prophet.  And when I prayed about going to the Temple, I was given assurance by the Spirit that someday I will have all the blessings of any other member."  It was a beautiful testimony.

After Sacrament meeting, I asked Mom how she felt about what he said.  Her response was, "I could never join a Church that wouldn't let me have my coffee."

Later that year the revelation on priesthood was given.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Meerkat

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say.  The members present aren't fools, know that she is a fellow Mormon, and probably sympathize with her dilemma.  And, after all, it is not a sin to feel SSA.  The sin is in acting upon it sexually.

We weren't at the meeting so it is hard to second guess the stake president. He obviously did what he thought was best, but he may have been prompted by the spirit to cut if off short. Savannah apparently invited guests too, which had the potential to turn this situation into a scene. Perhaps there was an idea for some to get up and pronounce support for Savannah. We don't know. As several have noted this was a lot different from a plain testimony. It was a choreographed and staged event - a coming out statement - somewhat of a protest statement about temple marriage policy. If it had been just the little girl and her parents, I may have been more inclined to let her finish, but I would definitely had some words after she finished supporting the positive aspects of what she said but firmly laying out the basic etiquette for testimonies that they are not a time to espouse one's personal views on politics, politically charged subjects, doctrine, etc, but should relate affirmative experiences with the restored gospel. Then if anything further inappropriate happened I would take action to take control of the meeting. But that is me. I don't even know what the guide books may say on the subject.

[JLHPROF]

5 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 love it.  I've been in other meetings (fire sides, private meetings etc) like that and they are some of the most spiritual.

The presiding priesthood calls on a quiet spiritual member to come up and speak about their Savior and how they feel his influence ...powerful.

Much more so than allowing the ward regular to take 10 mins on their recent vacation.

[Meerkat]

7 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 it.  That's an idea that would give context to testimony and add to the spirituality of Sacrament meeting.  It  may be more appropriate for a regular Sacrament meeting where the assigned speaker wasn't able to attend.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Meerkat

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Good point.  Being of a different race isn't a sin.

My Mother said she could never join a Church that wouldn't give blacks the priesthood.  When our youngest daughter was blessed, we invited my parents to attend. A black man I had recently baptized stood and bore his testimony.  He said "I don't know why I can't have the priesthood.  All I know is I read the Book of Mormon, and I know it's true.  I know Joseph Smith was a prophet.  And when I prayed about going to the Temple, I was given assurance by the Spirit that someday I will have all the blessings of any other member."  It was a beautiful testimony.

After Sacrament meeting, I asked Mom how she felt about what he said.  Her response was, "I could never join a Church that wouldn't let me have my coffee."

Later that year the revelation on priesthood was given.

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.

[longview]

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

- - - As several have noted this was a lot different from a plain testimony. It was a choreographed and staged event - a coming out statement - somewhat of a protest statement about temple marriage policy. If it had been just the little girl and her parents, I may have been more inclined to let her finish, but I would definitely had some words after she finished supporting the positive aspects of what she said but firmly laying out the basic etiquette for testimonies that they are not a time to espouse one's personal views on politics, politically charged subjects, doctrine, etc, but should relate affirmative experiences with the restored gospel. - - -

It is the duty of priesthood holders (even including Deacons) to "watch over the church" (see D&C 20:42,54).  It was entirely appropriate for the Stake President to maintain control of the meeting by gently turning the mic off and meekly asking her to sit down.

It is obvious it was more than a "protest statement."  It was a carefully planned effort to agitate against doctrine of Eternal Increase (i.e. exaltation in the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom which can only be accomplished by Temple-covenanted couple = 1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord).  If she really wants to forego that ultimate blessing, then she will go the way of the "Natural Man" and have at it.  If she wants to advocate for LBQT lifestyles, then she needs to leave and form her own church (or simply join one that already embraces perversion).

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm not so worried about "net benefit to the Church," and (in any case) the leaders at Church HQ don't micromanage what goes on in F&T mtgs.  The girl is only 12, and the members of her ward aren't suddenly going to apostatize just because she made some heartfelt comments which they know are not doctrinal.  It would have been best for the bishop or stake pres to wait until later and have a frank conversation with her and her parents about the true nature of F&T mtgs.  The same applies to the parents videotaping of the event, which they knew was wrong, and may be deserving of Church trial.

I have already said on this thread that reading prepared comments during F&T is inappropriate, regardless of intent.  One should speak extemporaneously as moved by the Spirit.  If one cannot at least do that, then a few innocuous words of gratitude for the blessings of the Lord might be O.K.  But there is no reason to cut the mic or get up and declare true doctrine so as to protect the largely "ignorant" members from some socio-political rant.  That is nonsense.  Best to just declare the neutrality of the Church on political claims and positions, and to leave it at that.  Actively censoring the testimonies in F&T mtgs would be the worst route to follow.  My ward is composed of members with a lot of life experience, and are not easily offended by dumb or offbeat comments.  They are likely to say, "This too shall pass."  Let the Holy Spirit guide, Bobbie, even if it seems to you to be too "open, permissive and democratic" in some odd political sense.  After all, the Holy Spirit may want something said which some people definitely don't want to hear.

I agree with most of what you say here Robert, I believe the bishop should have went with the spirit of the law in this case. Is that what you call it? Case by case would work well, given the situation. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

We weren't at the meeting so it is hard to second guess the stake president. He obviously did what he thought was best, but he may have been prompted by the spirit to cut if off short. Savannah apparently invited guests too, which had the potential to turn this situation into a scene. Perhaps there was an idea for some to get up and pronounce support for Savannah. We don't know. As several have noted this was a lot different from a plain testimony. It was a choreographed and staged event - a coming out statement - somewhat of a protest statement about temple marriage policy. If it had been just the little girl and her parents, I may have been more inclined to let her finish, but I would definitely had some words after she finished supporting the positive aspects of what she said but firmly laying out the basic etiquette for testimonies that they are not a time to espouse one's personal views on politics, politically charged subjects, doctrine, etc, but should relate affirmative experiences with the restored gospel. Then if anything further inappropriate happened I would take action to take control of the meeting. But that is me. I don't even know what the guide books may say on the subject.

I agree with much of what you say, Rev.  However, as noted by some on this and the other thread, cutting her off may have actually exacerbated the problem.  I consider her written views sincere -- even if misplaced in a F&T meeting.  I don't think it does any damage for everyone to hear her opinions and feelings.  Indeed, censoring such views probably does more damage than good.  We already spend far too much time sheltering children from reality, instead of  preparing them for the outside world.  Children will never develop any backbone if we engage in protectionism.  They need to confront the blandishments and evils of the world early and often.  Then, when they go off to college or a mission, they will not be easy marks for satanic nonsense.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I don't personally agree with turning off the mic, especially on a 12 year old, unless there had been some prior history or warning. It's easy looking at this in hindsight, though. Nevertheless, without any prior history, the leaders should have let the girl have her say and then spoken to her sometime afterward to let her and her family know the do's and don'ts.

[churchistrue]

It's an interesting question. F & T is quite remarkable in that there are 30,000 congregations across the world and there is an open mic once a month, and of course you hear stories about some crazy stories, and every ward has a couple regulars that everyone groans when they stand up and walk up, but for the most part, it seems there isn't much blatant abuse. ie 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? You can easily see that there is a line whereby if someone crossed it, they should be stopped.

Did the 12 yo girl cross that line in the recent episode? Probably not. But possibly. I'm not willing to take a strong stand either way. But I do have an opinion on the matter. If you are outraged over this and using it to embarrass the church, then I think you're being unfair. And if you are outraged over the fact that the 12 yo girl got up and said what she said on the opposite side of things, then I think you're being unfair. Unless you have a lot more info than I do.

By some reports, the mother who had left the church previously and has campaigned against the church on LGBTQ isues in the past wrote the testimony, and intended it to be a confrontational-combative moment. Who knows what the SP knew about this. Also, they apparently brought a group with them of LGBTQ advocates to witness the event. He might have seen them all come in, knowing the mother's issues, and had his guard up, anticipating a clash. He may have done the wrong thing, but I have some sympathy for him.

On the flip side, the content of the testimony was not too extreme or blatant, and you should be very careful about embarrassing a child like that. 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by churchistrue

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, sheilauk said:

   We should strive to do what we think is right regardless of whether or not someone is watching or what the world will think.

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. 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, and see little harm in letting the girl have her say.  

Exactly! 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The sin is in acting upon it sexually.

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"? 

Edited June 17, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It's an interesting question. F & T is quite remarkable in that there are 30,000 congregations across the world and there is an open mic once a month, and of course you hear stories about some crazy stories, and every ward has a couple regulars that everyone groans when they stand up and walk up, but for the most part, it seems there isn't much blatant abuse. ie 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? You can easily see that there is a line whereby if someone crossed it, they should be stopped.

Did the 12 yo girl cross that line in the recent episode? Probably not. But possibly. I'm not willing to take a strong stand either way. But I do have an opinion on the matter. If you are outraged over this and using it to embarrass the church, then I think you're being unfair. And if you are outraged over the fact that the 12 yo girl got up and said what she said on the opposite side of things, then I think you're being unfair. Unless you have a lot more info than I do.

By some reports, the mother who had left the church previously and has campaigned against the church on LGBTQ isues in the past wrote the testimony, and intended it to be a confrontational-combative moment. Who knows what the SP knew about this. Also, they apparently brought a group with them of LGBTQ advocates to witness the event. He might have seen them all come in, knowing the mother's issues, and had his guard up, anticipating a clash. He may have done the wrong thing, but I have some sympathy for him.

On the flip side, the content of the testimony was not too extreme or blatant, and you should be very careful about embarrassing a child like that. 

 

I was a convert at 13. Probably when I was around 15, I was giving my testimony I believe - possibly an assigned talk, but as I recall it now, it was a testimony. It was the end of the meeting, and actually the time had expired, and I got a note from the bishopric to stop. I felt actually somewhat embarrassed, but I have a bit of a stubborn streak, so continued a few more minutes. As i recall I was talking about being rich, and probably how that's not really a blessing, which was probably not a real popular aspect. So I was preaching a bit. The leadership was patient with me. but it would definitely have been within their authority to cut me off, although that would have really embarrassed me. I know it was not only the time but the subject matter at issue, because my dad brought it up later. Young members need guidance in appropriate speaking, and it is the responsibility of the Church to provide that guidance. Teenagers don't have the advantage of life experience to guide them. Some can handle themselves very maturely, but sometimes lack perspective, which is what I feel the young 12 year old lady lacked - and sadly her mother failed to provide it as well. Anyway, I believe full well she knew what she was saying was controversial, so she seems to have accepted the risk of being embarrassed. Indeed, her video is now online for life.

Anyway, sometimes the most appropriate thing is just to end a speaker's talk. Some are very inappropriate. The Church knows that sometimes members may go a bit astray, so it is an appropriate option. It is not like the Church has a paid ministry. No other church I know of would even let this little girl get up there in the first place.

[USU78]

The presiding church authority has not and will not publish his reasoning or whether and to what extent he was motivated by spiritual witness in cutting off further manifestoing. Those who disapprove, upon what basis, relevant to the setting, do you substitute your judgment for his?

[thesometimesaint]

19 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 have a big enough normal voice that I don't need a microphone.

[CV75]

19 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.

No training that I am aware of, but maybe someone can post a video of one and make a big deal of it!

I think from experience by far most bishops rely on their judgement and inspiration to interrupt someone bearing his testimony. There are many appropriate techniques to do this; the one common principle to follow entails being moved upon by the Holy Ghost and showing an increase of love afterwards.

[Calm]

"wrote the testimony, and intended it to be a confrontational-combative moment."

If you haven't already, could you post your sources for this in the other thread if possible?

Dont want to derail this one into a duplicate so it can be ignored by everyone else.

[Thinking]

Please limit replies to the OP. This is not a parallel thread to the other one.