12 yr old testimony drama

[Just_A_Guy]

41 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Thanks for tracking this down JaG. The bolded part is definitely what I was remembering and roughly paraphrasing. I appreciate your take on it, and now see the quote as two-fold. On the one hand it still speaks to me of the concern about being lead to destruction, by blindly following a man and not confirming for oneself that he is the spokesman for the Lord. On the other hand it speaks of the loss of dedication to the leadership by not confirming for oneself that he is indeed the Lord's chosen servant.Great insight.

Indeed.  J. Max Wilson offers some analysis of the quote at http://www.millennialstar.org/debunking-that-quote-about-brigham-youngs-greatest-fear/, with which I largely agree:  in essence, that Young is riffing off of a common anti-Mormon concern about the weight Mormons give to one person; initially acknowledging it ("what a pity...") but then taking it in a different direction to the effect that spiritual complacency leads to lackluster obedience, which is ultimately the greater threat.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I never put much stock in the blindly following criticism(s). Like that's the biggest worry we have or something.

And yet we walk in life intentionally placed behind a veil of blindness and are commanded to live by faith.

I think blindly following is pretty much what we're meant to do.*

*expanding on this idea, clearly we aren't meant to be "completely" blind. It's an analogy and at some point the words fail a bit. In one analogy of the gospel the idea is distinctly about light and being able to see thereby.  But we know this is line upon line. Even with this analogy we start in the dark and we must move into the light by faith. In another way of looking at it, the idea of a man being blindfolded but being led by other things works pretty well. Either way, I think there's an understanding to be had that we don't have all things revealed to us in this life as a general rule because we are not meant to be commanded in all things, are meant to walk by faith, etc., and that is part of the trial.

I think someone who approaches life with an, "I won't follow anything or anywhere until the Spirit confirms the truth of it to me" philosophy, even with who their leaders are, is asking to be led astray.

Generally, God gives us a taste of the light and then expects us to move forward in good faith. If you know the church is true then it's significant enough light to step up to the plate and sustain your Bishop whether the Spirit has specifically confirmed to you that he was supposed to be the bishop or not.

Asking for a confirmation for every calling, every ideal, ever practice, every principle, strikes me as the spirit of sign-seeking.

That's not to say one shouldn't seek for confirmation if they have doubts on a specific idea or person.

But unless one knows that the person being called as a bishop is in an adulterous affair, one has the obligation by their testimony of the church alone, to sustain that man. By that faith of action (applying it liberally to many principles in the gospel) we gain more light. Refusing to move until we see clearly pretty much guarantees that we'll stand still.

The idea that we have to pray about and receive spiritual confirmation about everyone we sustain and thereby the church is kept from apostasy doesn't make sense to me.

Edited June 29, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

Once again, sustaining is NOT whether people will follow or not follow the Lord at this time, and as I said, if we ever get to that point, we are in serious trouble in the Church.

It is that the membership should be led by the Holy Ghost so that if there are any questions that ever come up regarding leadership or other callings, the spirit can guide the membership so the correct choice can be made.

In the aforementioned situation with Brigham Young, if the church had chosen otherwise, most likely the LDS church would have become a footnote of the early 1800s and then disappeared.  Sure, Young may have still been the elect of the Lord, but without membership, there would be NO CHURCH.  He may have become a prophet, but he would not be President.

The ONLY reason Young was able to become leader of the Church was due to membership having the Spirit to guide them in that instance.  Other times and situations have also arisen, normally on more local levels, in similar situations.  Normally, things then come to light that other leadership were not aware of which point out why the membership felt as they did.

We are NEVER to blindly follow, and always seek the Holy Ghost's confirmation when we sustain.

Unfortunately, many probably do not seek this confirmation of their leaders, however, it is something that we are supposed to do.  This way, instead of simply thinking Monson is the Prophet of the Church, we KNOW he is the Prophet of the Lord.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Once again, sustaining is NOT whether people will follow or not follow the Lord at this time,

Once again, yes it is.

Does the repetition convince you? Based on that do you think your repetition is convincing?

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

if we ever get to that point, we are in serious trouble in the Church.

Maybe you should expound on this. How is our choosing to follow the prophet by sustaining him putting the church in serious trouble?

18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is that the membership should be led by the Holy Ghost so that if there are any questions that ever come up regarding leadership or other callings, the spirit can guide the membership so the correct choice can be made.

What choice?

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In the aforementioned situation with Brigham Young, if the church had chosen otherwise, most likely the LDS church would have become a footnote of the early 1800s and then disappeared.  Sure, Young may have still been the elect of the Lord, but without membership, there would be NO CHURCH.  He may have become a prophet, but he would not be President.

This may be well true (though I suspect Brigham would have gone on about the Lord's work and found true followers who were guided by the Spirit to the truth), but it doesn't seem relevant to the point.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

We are NEVER to blindly follow, and always seek the Holy Ghost's confirmation when we sustain.

Okay, you said it. Now support it.

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Unfortunately, many probably do not seek this confirmation of their leaders, however, it is something that we are supposed to do.  This way, instead of simply thinking Monson is the Prophet of the Church, we KNOW he is the Prophet of the Lord.

I know President Monson is the prophet of the church having never prayed specifically about him or made efforts to have his prophet-ness specifically confirmed to me.

Ask me how.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Once again, yes it is.

Does the repetition convince you? Based on that do you think your repetition is convincing?

Maybe you should expound on this. How is our choosing to follow the prophet by sustaining him putting the church in serious trouble?

What choice?

This may be well true (though I suspect Brigham would have gone on about the Lord's work and found true followers who were guided by the Spirit to the truth), but it doesn't seem relevant to the point.

Okay, you said it. Now support it.

I know President Monson is the prophet of the church having never prayed specifically about him or made efforts to have his prophet-ness specifically confirmed to me.

Ask me how.

 

No, because we in the church are NOT sustaining to choose whether we follow the Lord or not.  That is NOT the purpose of it at this time.  If it were, we, as the church, would be in serious trouble.

Repetition does NOT convince me, rather it is so that people understand, sustaining is NOT showing whether we will or will not follow the Lord.

Sustaining is done to show that you will support the Leadership.  In this you are supposed to have the Holy Ghost with you.  You are supposed to obtain a testimony for yourself regarding your leaders.  If you have the Holy Ghost with you, then you can also receive confirmation when you are to sustain them. 

When you raise your had to show you sustain someone, it is FAR more than a vote or simple indication of any such thing.  It is stating that you will literally sustain that individual in their calling. 

It is First - recognizing that person has been called of the Lord. 

(in the Brigham Young example, which is the most well known for members, it was recognizing that he was the Lord's anointed, rather than the apparent leadership chain that was felt to be the correct manner prior to that.  Smith had indicated that the leadership would follow family chains, at first to Samuel Smith, and then after his death, to his own Son.  The reorganized church did just that.  However, to think that the LORD will only work through the Leaders to accomplish his designs is to discount the power of the Lord.  It was through his power and spirit that the majority of the membership recognized that the true order to be followed was through Brigham Young and the Apostles, rather than what had seemed apparent before.  They recognized WHO the Lord called).

In this it is showing our confidence that this selection of a leader is correct.

It is Second - AFTER we raise our hands, we will follow their counsel.  We will help when they ask us to.  We will ACCEPT CALLINGS when asked. 

(IN MY OPINION, this is the most ignored item of sustaining.  I think many do not understand what sustaining is, and this is the reason that sometimes I have such a hard time filling some positions).

Third - We will pray for them and offer our faith and prayers on their behalf.

I do not know how many actually pray for their leaders.  Many may occasionally pray for the Prophet, but how about for the Seventies, or the Stake President, or for the Bishop, or for the Relief Society President.  When we sustain, we are also saying we will offer or faith and prayers on their behalf.

Sustaining is very similar to a covenant between you, the Lord, and the one being called.  You are pledging the above things.

It has NOTHING to do with whether you are choosing to follow the Lord or not, but more on whether you will sustain those called of the Lord.  There are many in the ward that may indicate that they will sustain a person when they are called.

A LOT LESS actually sustain that individual in their calling, or so I've noticed.  That does NOT mean they cease to be members of the church or are not following the Lord, but it means that they are not sustaining the person in that calling.  To say it is an indication whether one is following the Lord or not, IN MY OPINION, is to entirely miss what sustaining is, or what the point of it is.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It has NOTHING to do with whether you are choosing to follow the Lord or not, but more on whether you will sustain those called of the Lord. 

I do not see the difference.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not see the difference.

Because as I said, there are MANY who do not sustain those called in their wards (and sustaining is not just something one does in regards to the prophet, it is ANY calling in the church), but that does NOT MAKE them apostates.

If we excommunicated anyone who did not sustain someone who was called to some position in the ward, we would have no church. 

Sustaining is FAR more than just raising your hand, and this is why it is important to have a testimony of these things.  It does not mean you have to pray about every calling, but it does mean that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost.  When led by the Holy Ghost, you will not be led astray.  This applies to the church as a whole.

This is why, as long as the membership is led by the Holy Ghost, the church will not be led astray.  One lone rogue leader cannot lead the church astray while the entirety of the church is led by the Holy Ghost.  It has been tried in the past (though, talking about big events, it normally was just one or two General Authorities at a time, which the membership eventually did not approve of, which led to the twelve eventually also being led to do an excommunication of an apostle or Seventy...something which has not occurred recently...luckily) and failed.

When you have a testimony of a person so called, you should (not that you necessarily will) be led to do all the other items of sustaining that individual.  Because you know of their divine calling, you will follow their counsel in that calling, and if under their leadership for that calling, you would accept callings from them (aka...you would probably accept the Relief Society president's advice and counsel in regards to Relief society, but if you are a male, probably would not fall under their leadership to accept a calling in Relief Society.  On the otherhand, you would fall under that auspice to accept a calling from your Bishop).

In addition, because you have a testimony of that the calling is from the Lord, you will sustain them with your faith and prayers as well.  This is also sort of a circular item.  As you pray, you will gain that testimony renewed in regards to their calling and your faith will help to sustain them as well.

There are MANY in the wards that do not sustain their leadership.  There are many who do not accept callings, not realizing that this is part of the sustaining of our leaders.

Once again, this does NOT mean they are choosing not to follow the Lord, or apostatize from the church.  Most of the time this means they do NOT yet have a testimony that this calling is from the Lord.  This means they may not feel that leader has the divine inspiration from the Lord to make that call.  Hence, why having that testimony of your leadership is so important, because without it, in many instances, there is no desire to do what you say you will do when you raise your hand to acknowledge that you sustain that individual in their calling.

However, not sustaining someone in their calling is NOT a choice not to follow the Lord, anymore than any other things we may do say that.  There may be multiple factors (perhaps one cannot do what is asked because it conflicts with a work schedule, or perhaps there are other factors).  No one stands condemned for not sustaining a leader (now talking against or evil speaking, or specifically trying to tear down LDS leadership is different and the exact OPPOSITE of sustaining and should not be confused with simply not sustaining).

I think a majority of the church at some point or the other have not sustained a local leader at some point in their life.  Normally that has nothing to do with a choice of whether they are trying to follow the Lord or not, but other factors at work.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Because as I said, there are MANY who do not sustain those called in their wards (and sustaining is not just something one does in regards to the prophet, it is ANY calling in the church), but that does NOT MAKE them apostates.

Well now, that's an extreme way to put it. I don't believe any of us perfectly follow the Lord in everything (or, to keep the terminology consistent, choosing to follow the Lord). If that's what defines one as an apostate then we all are. I'm fairly certain that's not what I said. Positive that is not what I mean.

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we excommunicated anyone who did not sustain someone who was called to some position in the ward, we would have no church. 

Same point as above.

38 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are MANY in the wards that do not sustain their leadership.  There are many who do not accept callings, not realizing that this is part of the sustaining of our leaders.

Once again, this does NOT mean they are choosing not to follow the Lord,

There are a whole lot of people who are deceived into believing they are choosing to follow the Lord when they are not. Adding the phrase "choosing to" muddles it up a bit. The man who chooses to follow the voices in his head and murders his family because he believes it was the voice of God and chose to follow it is not justified.

The question comes down to deception, I suppose, in that case. (See my thread on that). But the person who does not sustain their leaders is not following the Lord.

45 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 No one stands condemned for not sustaining a leader

I think we will find differently when we stand before God on that day.

[zil]

Failure to follow one's leaders (who were called by the Lord), is failure (in part) to follow the Lord; just like committing a sin is failure to follow the Lord (in part).  Just like not all sins constitute apostasy, failure to sustain leaders (as much as one could sustain leaders) doesn't constitute apostasy.  Just as we will be held accountable for other sins, so we will be held accountable for our choices in regards to sustaining leadership.  This does not seem like that complex a concept.

[JohnsonJones]

17 minutes ago, zil said:

Failure to follow one's leaders (who were called by the Lord), is failure (in part) to follow the Lord; just like committing a sin is failure to follow the Lord (in part).  Just like not all sins constitute apostasy, failure to sustain leaders (as much as one could sustain leaders) doesn't constitute apostasy.  Just as we will be held accountable for other sins, so we will be held accountable for our choices in regards to sustaining leadership.  This does not seem like that complex a concept.

Perhaps.  But I'm only trying to reiterate what the church's stance is on sustaining, whereas it seems many here seem to have this idea that the point where we sustain leaders is where we choose whether we are going to follow the Lord or not.

That's ridiculous.

That's what people are trying to defend.  If we are going to use this as an argument, we might as well say...we choose everyday to not follow the Lord because we sin. Hence, there's no point to even being a church if that's the fact of it.  That's like saying, if we miss a day going to church, we have decided that we are not going to follow the LORD (and in this, when we state something like that, it typically means it's a permanent type of decision in our intent...not something which might not actually mean and we fully are still trying to follow the Lord as best we can).

That misses the point of what sustaining is.  It's NOT that decision point of whether we are going to choose to follow the Lord or not.

It is exactly as I outlined in my post above.

I narrowed it to 3 simple steps (the LDS sites actually break those down further, for example, accepting counsel and accepting callings are listed separately), but sustaining a leader is NOT going to decide whether we are going to fall away from the gospel and the church and other such nonsense implied in this thread.

People choose not to sustain their leaders all the time, most probably because they have do not have a testimony that the leader has the divine backing to act as the leader, or no testimony that the leader can receive divine inspiration to give a calling (and it happens a LOT, people decline callings all the time when a Bishop asks, and more than that even in regards to other things they've been asked to do by the local leadership...like clean the church).

To say that's the equivalent of apostasy...and they are choosing to no longer follow the Lord and reject the gospel...as has been implied in this thread  is NOT what it means...is, in my opinion, very much off track of what the intent and what sustaining is all about.

Sustaining shows that we will sustain our leaders, and that should be done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  If we follow the steps for sustaining our leaders, than, if that leader is called, as we show our faith and prayers in that light, by default we will gain a testimony of their calling even if we have not had it previously...OR...as many have chosen, we might not sustain that leader by rejecting their counsel (done constantly in wards), or rejecting a calling (also done quite a bit), or various other ways which we choose not to sustain a leader or individual in their calling.

Edited June 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones
added the last paragraph.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we are going to use this as an argument, we might as well say...we choose everyday to not follow the Lord because we sin

Every time we choose to sin, we choose in that way to not follow the Lord.  The Lord taught us not to sin.  Since He never sinned, sinning is, by definition, not following where he led / not following his example.  Perhaps you're talking in a more general generic sense of "I choose to follow the Lord as best I can, even though I will occasionally fall short, and sin, I will repent, because I'm trying my best to follow him" - sure, but the sin itself is not following the Lord.  No one said it was the end of the world, or amounted to apostasy (except maybe you), or that it couldn't be repented of eventually.  But any time we do something that the Lord did not and would not do, we are not following the Lord - by definition.  The severity will certainly vary, but the definition stands.  I fail to see why this is a problem.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 whereas it seems many here seem to have this idea that the point where we sustain leaders is where we choose whether we are going to follow the Lord or not.

No one even implied anything of the sort. Where do you get that from what's been said? No one has stated that in that very moment you must make a decision.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The idea behind the voting today isn't whether the people will follow the Lord or not

 

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Once again, sustaining is NOT whether people will follow or not follow the Lord at this time

 

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

No, because we in the church are NOT sustaining to choose whether we follow the Lord or not. 

May I point out that you're the one who changed things up in what you said. #strawman #whyamihashtaggingthispost

Edited June 29, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No one even implied anything of the sort. Where do you get that from what's been said? No one has stated that in that very moment you must make a decision.

You stated it.  It was in response to one of my first posts in this thread.  Go back and read what you wrote a page back or so.

Most likely because you thought of it in reference to simply sustaining the prophet, rather than every church leader. 

However, it is a MISNOMER, that would never occur.  The church would not reject a prophet of the Lord, and if it did, that would indeed be a serious time.

AS long as the membership has the spirit to guide them, and they should always strive to have his spirit to be with them, they will ALWAYS choose to sustain or at least show their support for the Lord's anointed Prophet.  To imply that the church would choose to not do so, is misleading and thus misses the entire point of why we raise our hands at General  Conference.

The reason we do so is as I've outlines, is as what is stated on the church websites, and is done in the local level on up.  We show our sustaining of the leaders. 

If there ever comes a point where the majority of the church is NOT led by the spirit, and hence does not show their support of the General authorities it will be as I said, it is indeed perilous times if that ever occurs.  However, there is no chance of that occurring in our present time, and to try to say that's the entire reason we raise our hands as a vote is to not understand WHY we raise our hands in the meeting.  It is to show we sustain the leader or not.  If we are led by the Holy Ghost, we can know whether we should or should not.

However, in the instance of a prophet, until the majority of the church has rejected the Holy Ghost...this WILL NOT HAPPEN.  Thus, to imply this is what we are doing or choosing, is missing the entire point of what and why we sustain someone to a calling.

That said, many raise their hands to support the prophet, but there are many that pick and choose what to actually sustain him in.

Anways, this has to be my last post of the thread, because I have to go catch a ticket as I'm going on another trip today.  If anyone has any questions regarding what sustaining is and why we do it...

Follow this link and hopefully you won't argue as much with it.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/we-sustain-our-leaders?lang=eng

Edited June 29, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, JohnsonJones said:

You stated it.  It was in response to one of my first posts in this thread.  Go back and read what you wrote a page back or so.

I am well aware of what I said and, even more, what I meant. And whether you misunderstood me or not, I'm telling you now, I never meant anything of the sort. If you can show me the quote where you think I said that in the very moment when a sustaining is called for you must make a choice, in that exact second, whether you're going to sustain them or not, then I'll clarify and explain how I didn't mean that at all.

If you're just going to be stubborn and belligerent then we're at an impasse.

[Budget]

I know this post kind of got derailed, but I have a question...  LOL.  I saw about 5 seconds of the video when it first hit mainstream news and then I clicked away - and I never actually went back and watched the whole thing.  However, one of the questions I had when I saw those 5 seconds was "this is obviously planned out because who would be filming it already if were not.. No one would be filming and recording otherwise...."   and I didn't dwell on it and went on with life. 

BUT!  Seeing the topic discussed here and reading through it, it seems it was her parents idea for her to stand and give this pre-written speech and if I understand correctly from the comments here - her parents are the ones who filmed it and released it to the public???  So - apparently it was their idea to make a statement like this in this way... was this actually their ward?  Were they actually members or did they randomly go to a different city where they wouldn't be known?

Since I didn't want to finish the video and didn't read about in detail I don't know some of the answers rattling around in my brain. 

For anyone who wants to answer... thank you!  

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think it has been established whether the parents were the source of the video or not.  

But they certainly have made a conscious effort to surf the wave of publicity this has generated, for their own purposes.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Budget said:

I know this post kind of got derailed, but I have a question...  LOL.  I saw about 5 seconds of the video when it first hit mainstream news and then I clicked away - and I never actually went back and watched the whole thing.  However, one of the questions I had when I saw those 5 seconds was "this is obviously planned out because who would be filming it already if were not.. No one would be filming and recording otherwise...."   and I didn't dwell on it and went on with life. 

BUT!  Seeing the topic discussed here and reading through it, it seems it was her parents idea for her to stand and give this pre-written speech and if I understand correctly from the comments here - her parents are the ones who filmed it and released it to the public???  So - apparently it was their idea to make a statement like this in this way... was this actually their ward?  Were they actually members or did they randomly go to a different city where they wouldn't be known?

Since I didn't want to finish the video and didn't read about in detail I don't know some of the answers rattling around in my brain. 

For anyone who wants to answer... thank you!  

 

 

We don't know who for sure did the filming or the initial posting, but it's been pushed to every media outlet by the same dude who sneaks into temples (he spent 40 hrs the first week alone doing this).  He also attended the F&T meeting where this all went down.  Mom is a angry ex-Mormon, Dad is a member.  Girl hadn't been to church is a ~year.  The speech was literally rehearsed and approved by the parents.  

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Budget said:

 "this is obviously planned out because who would be filming it already if were not.. No one would be filming and recording otherwise...."  

This implies that the stake leader probably stepped in BECAUSE he saw someone filming in the chapel (which we're not supposed to do).  When he saw that, he was wise enough to realize that this was a setup.  And that was when he chose to stop it.

Just my guess.  But it makes sense.

[RooTheMormon]

My opinion on this varies. I believe that as children of God we should all love and respect the other children of God (LGBT). Mormons are much more excepting of the LGBT community then people make us out to be. The church has even released a website just for gay mormons. What I'm saying is that it is fine to be an LGBT mormon.

What I DON'T think is fine is this girl bearng her "testimony" as a prepared speech filmed by others. When I first saw this video I imagined how much courage it took this girl to walk up to the front of the chapel and confess to everyone there. I still think she is brave for doing that. But there are some problems. A testimony is not a prepared speech. It comes from your heart and soul and changes and grows and is really a beautiful thing. A prepared testimony is not a testimony at all.

Having this speech (I'll call it a speech) filmed is not okay. Never in any scenerio should a church meeting be filmed and shared on social media, especially a testimony! The person filming was also reported on the news to be a family friend. So how many people were told this girl was goung to come out at church that Sunday?

Okay last thing, I read that soon after this, the girls mother came out as lesbian. This was especially confusing for me because she was apparently happily married to her husband. I have a feeling that maybe this girl was influenced/encouraged just a little bit. I once had a friend with two lesbian moms who always acted like they wanted her to be lesbian like them.

Im not meaning to offend anyone when I say this, I am just stating my opinion and thoughts. I believe we are all children of our loving Heavenly Father and no matter what he will always love us. Even if we are a member of the LGBT community. And I want you all to know that. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by RooTheMormon
Sorry I didnt mean to post this more than once! It wasnt loading so I clicked the sumbit button again so it submitted twice. Im not sure how to delete a post. Im not trying to spam!

[RooTheMormon]

My opinion on this varies. I believe that as children of God we should all love and respect the other children of God (LGBT). Mormons are much more excepting of the LGBT community then people make us out to be. The church has even released a website just for gay mormons. What I'm saying is that it is fine to be an LGBT mormon.

What I DON'T think is fine is this girl bearng her "testimony" as a prepared speech filmed by others. When I first saw this video I imagined how much courage it took this girl to walk up to the front of the chapel and confess to everyone there. I still think she is brave for doing that. But there are some problems. A testimony is not a prepared speech. It comes from your heart and soul and changes and grows and is really a beautiful thing. A prepared testimony is not a testimony at all.

Having this speech (I'll call it a speech) filmed is not okay. Never in any scenerio should a church meeting be filmed and shared on social media, especially a testimony! The person filming was also reported on the news to be a family friend. So how many people were told this girl was goung to come out at church that Sunday?

Okay last thing, I read that soon after this, the girls mother came out as lesbian. This was especially confusing for me because she was apparently happily married to her husband. I have a feeling that maybe this girl was influenced/encouraged just a little bit. I once had a friend with two lesbian moms who always acted like they wanted her to be lesbian like them.

Im not meaning to offend anyone when I say this, I am just stating my opinion and thoughts. I believe we are all children of our loving Heavenly Father and no matter what he will always love us. Even if we are a member of the LGBT community. And I want you all to know that. 

[Maureen]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:20 PM, RooTheMormon said:

...Okay last thing, I read that soon after this, the girls mother came out as lesbian. This was especially confusing for me because she was apparently happily married to her husband. I have a feeling that maybe this girl was influenced/encouraged just a little bit. I once had a friend with two lesbian moms who always acted like they wanted her to be lesbian like them....

I don't think this is true. The articles I've read about this story have mentioned that the mother (Heather) is an ex-Mormon while her husband and Savannah are members.

M.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Maureen

[Mormonheart]

As a member of the Church, who fought for many, many years with the theme of Savannah (feelings for women are not foreign to me), I can understand Savannah. She is twelve years. Her feelings for other people of the same sex are new to her. Savannah is not a bad person because she is a lesbian, not the person who has taken it all; But the person who put everything on the Internet. I guess it was one of her parents.

But with all legitimate criticism of this video. One question we have to ask ourselves as members of the Church is: How do we deal with our homosexual or transsexual children? Supportive, like Savannah's parents, or dismissive, as this counselor to the bishopric?

I ask because I've also seen a Video on YouTube. As an adult young man confesses to his family to be homosexual. This "Christian" family, wants him to go; What the young man understands, but asking for some time to prepare everything. The dispute escalates, and the father beats him out of the house.
Is this Christian like, would Christ do that? Is this the love of a father, a parent, to his child? Should children not be unconditionally loved and supported, no matter what they do?
I'm bisexual. I love men and women, I know! But I had never had a relationship with women because of the rules of the Church and the Bible. Let Savannah feel lesbian as long as she is not a lesbian!

[Jane_Doe]

27 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

As a member of the Church, who fought for many, many years with the theme of Savannah (feelings for women are not foreign to me), I can understand Savannah. She is twelve years. Her feelings for other people of the same sex are new to her. Savannah is not a bad person because she is a lesbian, not the person who has taken it all; But the person who put everything on the Internet. I guess it was one of her parents.

But with all legitimate criticism of this video. One question we have to ask ourselves as members of the Church is: How do we deal with our homosexual or transsexual children? Supportive, like Savannah's parents, or dismissive, as this counselor to the bishopric?

I ask because I've also seen a Video on YouTube. As an adult young man confesses to his family to be homosexual. This "Christian" family, wants him to go; What the young man understands, but asking for some time to prepare everything. The dispute escalates, and the father beats him out of the house.
Is this Christian like, would Christ do that? Is this the love of a father, a parent, to his child? Should children not be unconditionally loved and supported, no matter what they do?
I'm bisexual. I love men and women, I know! But I had never had a relationship with women because of the rules of the Church and the Bible. Let Savannah feel lesbian as long as she is not a lesbian!

Note: no one here is beating anyone out of any house.  In fact, there is church counsel specifically against that.  

In the case of Savannah, I don't think any one here was not trying to be supportive.  Just being supportive is... so many moves have good and bad components.  Her parents who helped her write the speech, arranged the whole hidden camera thing (or at least gave their permission), and gave their permission to have some one blast it to every new outlet.  They meant to show support but it's not so simple-- they knew a reversed speech wasn't going to fly, that hidden cameras are against protocol, and now unforggetting Google has memorized her as the little girl with a shut off mic.  They meant to be supportive, but in the same move helped orchestrate this mess.

Likewise the Stake President who shut off the mic was trying to be supportive: he takes the mic and tells her that she is loved, and iterates the good things she had said thus far.  He does his best to support her by not using the podium to reciting how she looked forward to abandoning Christ's ways, and then redirected her to good things.  

As to the guy who pushed the video to media outlets... frankly I have no warm feelings towards someone who sneaks and lies to make his point.  But he in his own way is trying to champion a cause and be supportive.  

 

My point is that things are complicated.  That supporting isn't as clear cut as black/white.  

[Vort]

47 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

But with all legitimate criticism of this video. One question we have to ask ourselves as members of the Church is: How do we deal with our homosexual or transsexual children? Supportive, like Savannah's parents, or dismissive, as this counselor to the bishopric?

Baloney. Savannah's parents were not "supportive", they were manipulative. The leadership member was not "dismissive", he was appropriately ending a dishonest, lying charade.

48 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I'm bisexual. I love men and women, I know!

I venture a guess that we all love men and women, yet the vast majority of us are not "bisexual" (at least not in the political sense). You don't have to be "bisexual" to love both sexes.