12 yr old testimony drama


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

He wasn't being dismissive.  He was ending an inappropriate speech for that venue.

For me, and many others who have seen this video, it looked as if this man switched off the microphone because Savannah was talking about her homosexuality. I was once in Berlin- Lankwitz in a fast and testimony meeting (that was the end of the nineties), when a woman got up, turned out to be a former member and transsexual, and accused the church of being inhuman. When she had finished talking, the bishop stood up, said he would know the case, and that this transsexual would know the rules of the church, and if she wanted to stay in, she would have had to stick to it and should have stayed as male.
What I wanted to say was that the man should have left Savannah to an end, and then to answer, so that is clear what the position of the Church is. But he would have let her talk out, no matter whether this speech was prepared, or not!

 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

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

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.

You think they were manipulative, but you do not know! Neither do I! I rather think the driving force was Savannah, and the parents have supported her.
I do not know if Savannah and her parents are very faithful members (I guess), but I believe that whoever wanted the video to be put into the web wanted to harm the church.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

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

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.

Bisexual is not political. It's the way I am! I find people attractive, no matter what gender they have! For example, I once fell in love with a man who is asexual. Or in a woman who writes wonderful stories (I am a hobby author).
But I know the red line: no sex before marriage, no same-sex relationships or sex. And this is what I hold, even if it has often been difficult for me in my life.

Edited by Mormonheart
wrong spellings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

For me, and many others who have seen this video, it looked as if this man switched off the microphone because Savannah was talking about her homosexuality.

She was not.  She was allowed to continue speaking for over 2 minutes after discussing being gay.  The Stake President intervened when she started talking about looking forward to being in a same-sex relationship, which in the LDS faith is saying "I look forward to committing grave sin and becoming an apostate". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

Bisexual is not political. It's the way I am!

"Bisexual" means that there are two sexes. Humans, like all vertebrates, are bisexual. Saying you are "bisexual" is like saying you are "air-breathing". It's obvious.

But that is not what you mean. You mean the political term "bisexual", which is that you want to have sex with both men and women.

13 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I find people attractive, no matter what gender they have!

So do I. Does that make me "bisexual"? Because I sure don't want to have sex with men, even (especially?) those I love.

If you say that I am not "bisexual", then obviously "bisexual" is being used as a political, not a biological, term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

For me, and many others who have seen this video, it looked as if this man switched off the microphone because Savannah was talking about her homosexuality.

Re-read about Jesus' cleansing of the temple and tell me what you see?  Is that an "un-Christian" act?

Shutting off the mic was about appropriateness for the venue and setting.  It had nothing to do with being mean to her.  She did something inappropriate and it needed to be stopped.  That's all. And it was not "being lesbian."  It was making the F&T meeting political.  You think the ward was being "un-Christian"?  What about her parents who put her up to this?  Were they being Christian?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Re-read about Jesus' cleansing of the temple and tell me what you see?  Is that an "un-Christian" act?

Shutting off the mic was about appropriateness for the venue and setting.  It had nothing to do with being mean to her.  She did something inappropriate and it needed to be stopped.  That's all. And it was not "being lesbian."  It was making the F&T meeting political.  You think the ward was being "un-Christian"?  What about her parents who put her up to this?  Were they being Christian?

The devaluation of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem had a completely different background from the speech of a twelve-year-old girl, who had cut off the microphone.
Jesus acted rightly, for it was his house, and that of his father. And there should be no enrichment. Neither the merchant nor the Pharisee. The man who exhibited the microphone would have had to have it put to an end (or is there no freedom of speech in the US since Trump no longer?), And then to answer it by loving the position of the church in a loving manner ,
That's what I criticize!

5 hours ago, Vort said:

"Bisexual" means that there are two sexes. Humans, like all vertebrates, are bisexual. Saying you are "bisexual" is like saying you are "air-breathing". It's obvious.

But that is not what you mean. You mean the political term "bisexual", which is that you want to have sex with both men and women.

So do I. Does that make me "bisexual"? Because I sure don't want to have sex with men, even (especially?) those I love.

If you say that I am not "bisexual", then obviously "bisexual" is being used as a political, not a biological, term.

The problem is, that you see the term "bisexual" as a political term. I see it just as a word, which describes me.

I guess, that, what you mean is "bi-gender/bi-sex", that we got both sex/gender in us. And the way, whe are trained in our live, shows us, if we are more male, female, or "in between".

 

5 hours ago, Vort said:

So do I. Does that make me "bisexual"? Because I sure don't want to have sex with men, even (especially?) those I love.

Sounds more like a lesbian than a bisexual woman. On the other hand, love knows many forms of expression, and physically attracted to someone is only one of many choices.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

The devaluation of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem had a completely different background from the speech of a twelve-year-old girl, 

It's not just the 12 yo girl, but the ones pulling her strings.  You seem to be stuck on the 12 yo.  We're not.  We're thinking about the adults that put her in such a position.

41 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

Jesus acted rightly, for it was his house, and that of his father. And there should be no enrichment. Neither the merchant nor the Pharisee. 

The stake rep acted rightly, for he was the Lord's representative in this instance.  There should be no political gain, nor personal empowerment in accepting and demanding respect for choosing sin.  Notice I said "choosing sin."  It wasn't about her SSA (which may or may not have been innate--we don't know in her case).  It was about her being proud of the fact that she's choosing to live the lifestyle.

41 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

The man who exhibited the microphone would have had to have it put to an end (or is there no freedom of speech in the US since Trump no longer?)

No, in a private place of worship in a sacred setting such as this, freedom of speech justly has limits. What if you went to the temple and just started announcing, "this is all BS!"  Is that freedom of speech appropriate?  Should we just keep accepting this person's interruption and wait until afterwords to talk to him?  No, they'd stop the ceremony and pull him aside and have some words with him.  Then they'd allow the remainder of the participants to continue without him.

41 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

And then to answer it by loving the position of the church in a loving manner ,

Who says he didn't?  What I heard was a man getting up afterwards to remind everyone that she was a child of God.  But that just didn't make it onto the video.  I wonder why.

Quote

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

--- 1 Ne 16

Speaking the truth as the Lord tells it is never un-Christlike.  As a parent, I will speak hard things to my children when they're misbehaving.  That doesn't mean it isn't done in love and that I don't value them as Children of God or as my own flesh and blood.

I need to ask you to take a step back from all the pitch and moment of this discussion and ask what was done wrong on the side of the girl and her family.  Then compare that to what you perceive to be wrong with the leaders involved.  Then ask yourself what each side did that was right.  Compare. I don't see a single thing that the girl or her family did that was right.  Can you?

Are you still sure that offense at their reactions is still warranted?  Are you sure that their actions weren't Christ-like?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Should children not be unconditionally loved no matter what they do?

Yes.

13 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Should children not be unconditionally supported no matter what they do?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

hould children not be unconditionally loved and supported, no matter what they do?

Supported?  As in encouraged?  As in, told that they're just fine and don't need to change?

So, if a 12 yo gangbanger murders someone, they should be supported and told that they're just fine.  Ok.  Yeah, I can go along with that.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Supported?  As in encouraged?  As in, told that they're just fine and don't need to change?

So, if a 12 yo gangbanger murders someone, they should be supported and told that they're just fine.  Ok.  Yeah, I can go along with that.

Let's take a deep breath. There is a big difference between murdering someone and sexuality.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Supported?  As in encouraged?  As in, told that they're just fine and don't need to change?

So, if a 12 yo gangbanger murders someone, they should be supported and told that they're just fine.  Ok.  Yeah, I can go along with that.

No. Only if they have the desire to murder someone. If they don't act on it, it's no sin. Right? Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MormonGator said:

Let's take a deep breath. There is a big difference between murdering someone and sexuality.  

Sexuality or homosexuality?

We all have tendencies of one form or another.  But who has chosen to ACT on it?  A murderer is not a murderer until he goes through with the action.  And let me tell you how grateful I am for that distinction.  But when a person with SSA decides to abandon the Lord in favor of following their sexual desires, they have made a grave mistake that will cost them their exaltation.  You don't think that is serious enough to raise an alarm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 You don't think that is serious enough to raise an alarm?

What would you like to do to a homosexual child? Kill them? Send them away to jail? Lock them up in the basement? Renounce them as your own? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What would you like to do to a homosexual child? Kill them? Send them away to jail? Lock them up in the basement? Renounce them as your own? 

I wouldn't lock up a person with an anger management problem.  But at the same time, I'd be very concerned that such a person would one day lose control and end up killing someone.

The thing I objected to in MH's post was this notion that we "unconditionally support" a child.  Unconditionally means unconditionally.  Murder and taking their sibling's candy is the same when you start using descriptors like that.  No, all things but loving the person is supposed to be conditional.  Our treatment, our support, our actions, are conditional.  It's the mirror image of "loyal opposition".  Call it "tough love" for lack of a better term.

Gator, you're a friend and I don't want to be too hard on you.  But you have a soft spot on this issue.  I can separate the sin from the sinner.  But we do NOT encourage sinful behavior.  Bottom line.  For some reason, many will take criticism of the behavior as condemnation of a person.

Your libertarian political side seems to be affecting the LDS religious side.  I have no problem with someone being gay in a free society.  But in our faith, an unrepentant person willfully choosing to engage in homosexual activity is not in line with what the Lord wants.  We do NOT support such people in those efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I wouldn't lock up a person with an anger management problem.  But at the same time, I'd be very concerned that such a person would one day lose control and end up killing someone.

The thing I objected to in MH's post was this notion that we "unconditionally support" a child.  Unconditionally means unconditionally.  Murder and taking their sibling's candy is the same when you start using descriptors like that.  No, all things but loving the person is supposed to be conditional.  Our treatment, our support, our actions, are conditional.  It's the mirror image of "loyal opposition".  Call it "tough love" for lack of a better term.

Gator, you're a friend and I don't want to be too hard on you.  But you have a soft spot on this issue.  I can separate the sin from the sinner.  But we do NOT encourage sinful behavior.  Bottom line.  For some reason, many will take criticism of the behavior as condemnation of a person.

Your libertarian political side seems to be affecting the LDS religious side.  I have no problem with someone being gay in a free society.  But in our faith, an unrepentant person willfully choosing to engage in homosexual activity is not in line with what the Lord wants.  We do NOT support such people in those efforts.

I appreciate the kind words-I consider you a friend for sure. 

You are correct, I see this issue differently. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mormonheart

Fast and testimony meeting is for heart felt, brief testimonies of the Gospel. 

Fast and testimony meeting is not for the expression of beliefs and viewpoints contrary to the Gospel.  It certainly is not the place to tell people you look forward to living a life that is contrary to those principles and try to tell the audience that it will be okay with God.  That is what this little girl did.  Just because you do not like the fact that she was called on it and stopped does not make it wrong.  She (and/or her parents) were pursuing an agenda contrary to the Gospel. 

Fast and testimony meeting is not the venue.  Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mirkwood said:

@Mormonheart

Fast and testimony meeting is for heart felt, brief testimonies of the Gospel. 

Fast and testimony meeting is not for the expression of beliefs and viewpoints contrary to the Gospel.  It certainly is not the place to tell people you look forward to living a life that is contrary to those principles and try to tell the audience that it will be okay with God.  That is what this little girl did.  Just because you do not like the fact that she was called on it and stopped does not make it wrong.  She (and/or her parents) were pursuing an agenda contrary to the Gospel. 

Fast and testimony meeting is not the venue.  Period.

Have you ever been twelve years old? Thrilled by something? Savanna wanted to hold that testimony, not her parents, not an organization for homosexuals, just Savannah. And the parents helped her because they were good parents.
A question: Can not you have your own opinion in the church? Is it forbidden to think independently in the church? Just as I understand the rules of the Church, and, as the gospel is taught, I think that we are very right. We can disagree with the church or the prophet, but it is up to us whether we want to follow the prophet or someone else. An example:
Years ago there was a large court case in Germany, including members of the church (including bishops and a former stake president), the so-called "WABAG" Trial. People, members of the church, bought shares from WABAG, Buy WABAG's products, because the local Bavarian leaders of the church wanted to. Today, we know that it was a fraudulent company, and the members of the Church who were campaigning for it were both perpetrators and victims.
Joseph Smith once said meaningfully that he was a prophet only if he were acting as one, otherwise he would be a faulty man, as we all.

Is it good to be gay? As an identity, it is not bad (not as good as heterosexuality, but okay), but whoever lives it is on the wrong side. After all, in addition to the negative gospel effects, exuberant homosexuality brings one thing: loneliness and misfortune, coupled with suicide thoughts and hatred for the church. I know what I'm talking about! I've been through it all at a young age.

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It's not just the 12 yo girl, but the ones pulling her strings.  You seem to be stuck on the 12 yo.  We're not.  We're thinking about the adults that put her in such a position

Not the parents, Savannah wanted to give this testimony.

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Speaking the truth as the Lord tells it is never un-Christlike.  As a parent, I will speak hard things to my children when they're misbehaving.  That doesn't mean it isn't done in love and that I don't value them as Children of God or as my own flesh and blood.

I want to tell you a story. A true story. She stood in the tribune of Salt Lake City years ago. A gay member of the church, a teenager aged 15, told his parents that he is gay. The reaction of parents? The father beat him, and threw him out of the house, leaving the boy homeless. To survive, he had to sell, prostitute himself. In doing so, he is addressing a man, whether he is a member of the Church or not, because I know the case is fifteen years ago, who raped him and killed him.
What would have happened if the parents had acted differently? He would still be alive, would not have to prostitute himself.
When I said we should love and support our children unconditionally, I do not mean that we should be good at their deeds if they are bad in our eyes. It means that we help our children, but always consider them as independent beings, just as Kahil Gibran expressed it so beautifully in his poem "The Prophet".

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

What would you like to do to a homosexual child? Kill them? Send them away to jail? Lock them up in the basement? Renounce them as your own?

How about:
"I love you because you are a wonderful person with many talents, you say you're gay / lesbian / transsexual, well, I do not understand it and it's against everything I believe in And I will give it to you because I love you.If you are old enough and find someone who loves you and whom you love, I am glad for you, but I will I am very happy to accept this love, because it is against the commandments of God, and there is a time when things change, when you, with me, with God, there is enough time to think about it again. "

That would be loving, supportive, but also clear and honest.

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, if a 12 yo gangbanger murders someone, they should be supported and told that they're just fine.  Ok.  Yeah, I can go along with that.

If my son were like this, I would call the police, get him a good lawyer, and make it clear to him that I would still love him, but his crime would be abominable, and he must stand straight for his action.

Edited by Mormonheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

" Can not you have your own opinion in the church? Is it forbidden to think independently in the church? "

yes, but you cannot spout them in a sermon from the pulpit or at least not without an expectation of correction or reprimands

A 12 year old girl who loves his parents, the church, and himself, wants to say something. Something that is very dear to her heart. She is a lesbian, at least she believes that. Maybe she is, maybe not. She just wanted to say what is in her heart. For this, a testimony meeting is in fact as well!
For me, it is a brave little person who tries to do the right thing for herself, regardless of how it affects others inside and outside the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mormonheart said:

A 12 year old girl who loves his parents, the church, and himself, wants to say something. Something that is very dear to her heart. She is a lesbian, at least she believes that. Maybe she is, maybe not. She just wanted to say what is in her heart. For this, a testimony meeting is in fact as well!
For me, it is a brave little person who tries to do the right thing for herself, regardless of how it affects others inside and outside the church.

You are incorrect.  Fast and testimony meeting is not the venue for what this girl did.  Again, just because you are hearing something you do not like, does not make it wrong.  She chose to make a statement in a time and place that was not the locale for her coming out statement.  You can whine about it all you want, but you are still incorrect in your belief that she had the right to say the things she was saying without being stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

A 12 year old girl who loves his parents, the church, and himself, wants to say something. Something that is very dear to her heart. She is a lesbian, at least she believes that. Maybe she is, maybe not. She just wanted to say what is in her heart. For this, a testimony meeting is in fact as well!
For me, it is a brave little person who tries to do the right thing for herself, regardless of how it affects others inside and outside the church.

I work with young people (10-20) regularly at my job.  A person can enthusiastic, stupid, and misguided all at the same time.  It happens quite regularly.  And such does not give a person the license to do whatever they want without the consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

who tries to do the right thing for herself, regardless of how it affects others inside and outside the church.

Well now, doesn't that just about sum up evil quite well? I do believe that's about exactly what Satan did? I think that is the core of what Satan would have us all do. Do what's right for us, regardless of how it hurts others. Yes, yes. I do believe that sums up evil very well indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

How about:
"I love you because you are a wonderful person with many talents, you say you're gay / lesbian / transsexual, well, I do not understand it and it's against everything I believe in And I will give it to you because I love you.If you are old enough and find someone who loves you and whom you love, I am glad for you, but I will I am very happy to accept this love, because it is against the commandments of God, and there is a time when things change, when you, with me, with God, there is enough time to think about it again. "

That would be loving, supportive, but also clear and honest.

 

We agree. I think it's obvious that I'm on your side here. 
 

What I said earlier in the thread was correct-that the leadership was right to shut off her mic. This is about parents-child now. Different ballgame. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2017 at 9:03 AM, Mormonheart said:

The devaluation of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem had a completely different background from the speech of a twelve-year-old girl, who had cut off the microphone.

The principle is still the same.


Jesus acted rightly, for it was his house, and that of his father.

The church leadership has a responsibility, a stewardship, for the Lord's house.  He was rightly carrying out his stewardship as the presiding leader.  He was commissioned by Christ to this responsibility.

It disturbs me that you do not understand that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share