12 yr old testimony drama

[Mormonheart]

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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.  

I have, when I was still professionally active, worked for a while in the social welfare.
There I had much to do with neglected children and young people. A difficult but also fulfilling time. Children in Savannah's age do not think about the consequences of their actions, they only think about what they feel at the moment, and want to do. In the Tribune I saw a picture of Savannah, who participated in Christopher Street Day (also called Gay Pride), in SLC.
When she is a lesbian, I wish her the best of luck and support in her life, and that she will find people who accept her as she is. And I would wish; That the Church and their members do not shun or excommunicate Savannah and her family but learn from it. In Germany we have a proverb: "Children and Drunk say always the truth".

[Mormonheart]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

A church / chapel, is not a temple! It requires the courtesy of letting people talk to the end. It also shows respect. One does not have to be the same as a speaker, but by letting him finish, I pay him respect, and I can expect it from him. In Germany is our attitude different from members in the USA.

BTW: What do you think about the latest revelations about Donal's "Fake News" Trump, and the connection of his son to Russia?

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

A church / chapel, is not a temple! It requires the courtesy of letting people talk to the end.

What gives you this idea? The presiding authority is under no obligation to allow false or pernicious doctrine to be taught. Quite the contrary.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

A church / chapel, is not a temple! It requires the courtesy of letting people talk to the end. It also shows respect. One does not have to be the same as a speaker, but by letting him finish, I pay him respect, and I can expect it from him. In Germany is our attitude different from members in the USA.

In Germany, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still led by the Lord through his prophet, and in a letter from said prophet (and the rest of the First Presidency) years ago, they instructed members regarding what they should bear testimony of in fast and testimony meeting.  Their intent to apostatize and claims that the Church's teachings are false were not among them.  Whether your local leaders refer to this document at the start of the meeting or not doesn't alter the truth of the purpose of this meeting.  I'm sorry that it isn't well-taught in your area as your meetings and understanding of this aspect of the Church would be better if it had been.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

And I would wish; That the Church and their members do not shun or excommunicate Savannah and her family but learn from it.

The Church typically does not excommunicate people for being homosexual, or even for practicing homosexuality. The Church does indeed discipline, even to the point of excommunicating, those who actively preach against the gospel or who seek to destroy the Church, its leaders, or its members. Standing up in a sacrament meeting and preaching the false doctrine of homosexuality is evil. It is destructive. Such an action might very well lead to a person being excommunicated, especially if that person is an adult who is encouraging a mere child to speak out in open apostasy. No one who loves the gospel could possibly complain about such an excommunication.

[Guest MormonGator]

Homosexuality is the hot button topic right now. I think we should mention that if Mike walked up there and started talking about how he was having an affair with Lauren (literally pulling names out of the sky here) the bishop would probably act the same way. 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Homosexuality is the hot button topic right now. I think we should mention that if Mike walked up there and started talking about how he was having an affair with Lauren (literally pulling names out of the sky here) the bishop would probably act the same way. 

...especially if he went on about how this was the right thing to do, and the Church's teachings against it were wrong...

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

...especially if he went on about how this was the right thing to do, and the Church's teachings against it were wrong...

Agree totally. Like I mentioned before, the bishop did the right thing by cutting off her mic. Totally agree, 100%. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Mormonheart said:

I have, when I was still professionally active, worked for a while in the social welfare.
There I had much to do with neglected children and young people. A difficult but also fulfilling time. Children in Savannah's age do not think about the consequences of their actions, they only think about what they feel at the moment, and want to do. In the Tribune I saw a picture of Savannah, who participated in Christopher Street Day (also called Gay Pride), in SLC.
When she is a lesbian, I wish her the best of luck and support in her life, and that she will find people who accept her as she is. And I would wish; That the Church and their members do not shun or excommunicate Savannah and her family but learn from it. In Germany we have a proverb: "Children and Drunk say always the truth".

Thank you for you service with neglected young people.  That makes a big difference in the world.  

I'm glad you support them as people.  But as for actions: if you have a young person which commits a crime, do you support them in doing that criminal activity?  Again, yes you love them as a person, but do you support them in this criminal activity?

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

A church / chapel, is not a temple! It requires the courtesy of letting people talk to the end. It also shows respect. 

Again, incorrect.  The preaching of false doctrine should (and will) be shut down immediately by the presiding authority.  Courtesy is the way the presiding authority was polite in asking Savannah to please stop and sit down.  The only one showing a lack of respect was Savannah when she began to espouse false doctrine at the pulpit.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The only one showing a lack of respect was Savannah when she began to espouse false doctrine at the pulpit.

I'd say the person filming the affair was showing a lack of respect too.

[Mormonheart]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

What gives you this idea? The presiding authority is under no obligation to allow false or pernicious doctrine to be taught. Quite the contrary.

This young girl, Savannah, did not want to proclaim "false doctrines," but merely say what she feels. Not more but also not less. I have looked at some biblical quotes on homosexuality on the basis of the discussion and I come to the conclusion that the authors of the Bible understood something else under the topic, than we did. I have, as a reference book, the standard work of the theologians, "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", which I possess (a lot of books!), to see; what some words really mean. Very interesting, and a new light is also on my own bisexuality!

I criticized my former bishop years ago because he had no idea of a topic, but pretended to have eaten "the wisdom with spoons", as one says in Germany. He criticized me because I have convicted him as a priesthood holder, what would a woman of the church never done. What an A ***!

But I had to disagree, because this birthright of male intelligence meant that women never had authority in Christendom, that is, the priesthood. I made it clear to him, by means of theological and historical researches, that women were even apostles in early Christianity, and I mentioned the apostle Junia, who became Juneas in the twelfth century. My former bishop, whose first name should be Bernd instead of "ignorance," said to end the discussion that God had told him. This weakness misuses God to justify his own ignorance.
Yes, you understood correctly. I am in favor of giving women the priesthood, as in the first centuries of Christendom.

7 hours ago, zil said:

In Germany, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still led by the Lord through his prophet, and in a letter from said prophet (and the rest of the First Presidency) years ago, they instructed members regarding what they should bear testimony of in fast and testimony meeting.  Their intent to apostatize and claims that the Church's teachings are false were not among them.  Whether your local leaders refer to this document at the start of the meeting or not doesn't alter the truth of the purpose of this meeting.  I'm sorry that it isn't well-taught in your area as your meetings and understanding of this aspect of the Church would be better if it had been.

By no means did Savannah say that church doctrines were wrong. She said what she felt, no more, but not less. To put it in my words, your main intention, in addition to her confession of being gay, was that she would like the members of the church not to shun her, or to think that she is a bad person. This is NOT Church criticism, this is chritisism of how members handle this topic. This transsexual woman, of whom I had already spoken, was able to talk because German people in the church are polite to each other, even if we do not share the opinions of others.

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Homosexuality is the hot button topic right now. I think we should mention that if Mike walked up there and started talking about how he was having an affair with Lauren (literally pulling names out of the sky here) the bishop would probably act the same way.

I'm not sure about that. My former Bishop was very interested in "sexual confessions"

6 hours ago, zil said:

...especially if he went on about how this was the right thing to do, and the Church's teachings against it were wrong..

Once again, for all the countrymen, Savannah expressed only two things in this fast and testimony meeting: on the one hand that she is a lesbian (or she thinks she is); And on the other hand, that she do not want to be discriminated in the church.Two reasons for me.

Love knows many expressions. Physical / sexual, is just one of many. I know two Catholic nuns who love each other, but both hold the chastity-vow of their coven. So, Savannah can also be lesbian, love someone, and be loved, and still comply with the rules of the Church.
To be a lesbian does not mean to fall as a vampire on other women, and to suck them out.
To make it clear to you from the US: I do not condemn Savannah. Not because she's lesbian, not even because of the video, for a simple reason. She is young, still needs to find her place in the world. Maybe she is happily married to a man in ten years, has four children, a house and a dog? Or, on the other hand, she is in ten years a lesbian, and had leave the church. It is HER CHOICE, not our choice!

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm glad you support them as people.  But as for actions: if you have a young person which commits a crime, do you support them in doing that criminal activity?  Again, yes you love them as a person, but do you support them in this criminal activity?

Among my clients were children who stole, children who raped other children, and a child who lit a dog when he was sleeping.
I've tried to understand why they did that. And often I found out the cause.
"My" clients, whom I looked at as my children, I have always made clear that their actions harm them and others, and therefore can not be tolerated. On the other hand, I tried to do everything to help them. Not to justify them and their deeds, for there was nothing to justify; But to change their behavior. So that they can see why they are doing something (frustration, contempt, as a child, being victims of violence / rape), and develop strategies. Sometimes I was successful, sometimes not.

 

5 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The only one showing a lack of respect was Savannah when she began to espouse false doctrine at the pulpit.

Would Savannah have been silent? The usual phrases to say a testimony meeting?

 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd say the person filming the affair was showing a lack of respect too.

Maybe it was? Perhaps I could even agree with you? On the other hand, this video also presents a problem. Homosexual people have it hard in the church.
In my former Ward, there was once a priesthood holder who said he is gay. Just that he is, not that he has practiced it. He was married, father of three children.
As a result, he was shunned by the members, and young people (at the time I was 20 years old) were no longer allowed to give dance lessons. His marriage was divorced; he could neither see the children nor send them anything. One day I heard that he had taken his own life. I learned from his former wife that he had left a farewell letter in which he wrote that he could no longer endure the exclusion of family and church.

Since then, I have often wondered whether the Church is not complicit in the homicide/suicide of homosexual members? Whether not a better deal with the subject, would prevent suicide?
I, too, was on the verge of suicide, because I loved it-in the eyes of the church, the wrong person. Another woman.

 

[Vort]

Just now, Mormonheart said:

This young girl, Savannah, did not want to proclaim "false doctrines," but merely say what she feels.

This is utterly irrelevant. No one intentionally preaches false doctrine. They preach what they believe. Again, a Church authority is under no obligation to allow false doctrine to be taught from the pulpit -- even if the person teaching the false doctrine does not think it's false.

4 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I have looked at some biblical quotes on homosexuality on the basis of the discussion and I come to the conclusion that the authors of the Bible understood something else under the topic, than we did.

This is why we have actual prophets to speak in God's name and stead, rather than depend on our own interpretations.

9 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I have, as a reference book, the standard work of the theologians, "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", which I possess (a lot of books!), to see; what some words really mean.

I don't think theologians have anything useful to offer.

12 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

What an A ***!

That is actually not allowed on this site.

13 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I criticized my former bishop years ago because he had no idea of a topic, but pretended to have eaten "the wisdom with spoons", as one says in Germany. He criticized me because I have convicted him as a priesthood holder, what would a woman of the church never done...But I had to disagree, because this birthright of male intelligence meant that women never had authority in Christendom, that is, the priesthood. I made it clear to him, by means of theological and historical researches, that women were even apostles in early Christianity, and I mentioned the apostle Junia, who became Juneas in the twelfth century.

The Greek term ἀπόστολος (apostolos) simply meant "someone sent forth" -- essentially, "missionary" -- so could apply equally to men and women. In the restored gospel, we use the term exclusively as a recognition of Priesthood authority. In this modern sense, Junia was not an apostle. Your bishop was right.

17 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

Yes, you understood correctly. I am in favor of giving women the priesthood, as in the first centuries of Christendom.

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Women do not hold the Priesthood, now or in the past.

25 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

Homosexual people have it hard in the church...I have often wondered whether the Church is not complicit in the homicide/suicide of homosexual members? Whether not a better deal with the subject, would prevent suicide?

What would you have the Church do? Refuse to teach gospel truths and speak out against sin?

26 minutes ago, Mormonheart said:

I, too, was on the verge of suicide, because I loved it-in the eyes of the church, the wrong person. Another woman.

Do you honestly believe that your love for another person was the issue? I love many men -- my father, my father-in-law, my sons, many friends -- and there is not a word of condemnation for the fact. (I am a man, by the way.) Love for another person has never been the issue in homosexual relationships. You are free to love all, even encouraged to do so. Having sex with others and otherwise living after the manner of a married couple is another matter entirely, however.

[The Folk Prophet]

The "you're causing suicide" argument is the progressive Mormon's reductio ad Hitlerum version of logic.

[Mormonheart]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The "you're causing suicide" argument is the progressive Mormon's reductio ad Hitlerum version of logic.

Never heard of the law of "cause and effect"?
An example:
Two children are playing in the sandbox. One child (A) takes the bucket away from the other child (B). Child B wants his bucket back, child A wants to keep him, whereupon child B hits child A.
What is the cause (child A has stolen the bucket)? What is the consequence (child B hits back)?
Anyone who claims that a homosexual member of the Church is himself responsible for suicide without taking into account the circumstances leading to suicide is either blind, ignorant, or without compassion.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

This is utterly irrelevant. No one intentionally preaches false doctrine. They preach what they believe. Again, a Church authority is under no obligation to allow false doctrine to be taught from the pulpit -- even if the person teaching the false doctrine does not think it's false.

It is polite to let a man talk. After his speech one can show his own view. Imagine if we were both in a discussion round, and I would interrupt you continually, because I do not like what you say? It is a sign of good behavior to let a man talk!

I know a testimony is not a discussion! But here too, as everywhere in the Western and Christian world, it is rude to interrupt someone who is talking.
In my opinion, she has not proclaimed "false doctrines", but only said what is in her heart, even if she had to write it down before.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

This is why we have actual prophets to speak in God's name and stead, rather than depend on our own interpretations.

This can not be used to wipe historical facts from the table! A prophet can tell us that women TODAY must not have the priesthood, but he can not say that it was so in early Christianity.
In the University Library of Vienna, Austria, there is a fragment from Paul's letter to the Romans. Dated to 89 AD. In it a woman is called an apostle. Her name is Junia. John Chrysostom, a well-known Catholic church, says about her;

"To be an apostle is something great. But famous among the Apostles - remember what great praise this is. How great must have been the wisdom of this woman that she was worthy for the title of Apostle. "

But women were not only apostles in the early Church. They builded house churches and lead them, were bishops and deacons. In the Catholic Church women could be deacons until the 6th century.

But I notice that I revert to my favorite subject.
The reason I was concerned with the biblical passages on homosexuality was, on the one hand, this discussion here, and on the other hand, because I really wanted to know what the Bible says.
Does the word "TO'EBAH" tell you something? Also known under the name ABOMINATION, is often cited in Leviticus. To'ebah, however, does not describe any sin, such as murder, robbery, rape, but what is socially and morally objectionable. What made you impure.
To get back clean, you had to take a ritual bath, the so-called "mikwe". After that you were again acceptable. This is just one of many examples. This requires no revelations from God, not a prophet, but just a good ancient-Hebrew dictionary, and common sense.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't think theologians have anything useful to offer.

For me, this dictionary is worth gold! Because the authors who have worked on it are all scientists who are well versed in the ancient Greek language. Another example (just as good as driving):
Tell you the term "Malakoi" (Malakee) something:
Luther translated it correctly as "catamite". It is very closely related to temple prostitution. Many in the US translate the word as a (passive) homosexual. This is nonsense!

I quote:

John MacArthur admits that the context of 1 Cor 6 was temple prostitution. Describing Corinthian Christians in the first century AD, he writes:

"They also lived in a society that was notoriously immoral, a society that, in the temple prostitution and other ways, actually glorified promiscuous sex. To have sexual relations with a prostitute was so common in Corinth that the practice came to be called "Corinthianizing." Many believers had formerly been involved in such immorality, and it was hard for them to break with the old ways and easy to fall back into them... it was also hard for them to give up their sexual immorality." (he is a conservative Calvinist Pastor.

What does this word really means?

I quote (same source as above, Link):

However, that malakoi means male prostitutes in Paul's usage is unlikely since Paul has already mentioned pornoi, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list. Because Paul's reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using malakoi with the meaning of male prostitutes. English translations did not translate malakoi to mean homosexual until the Amplified Bible in 1958.

Interesting, isn't it? Malakoi was before translate as "weak" effeminate", yes, also as "masturbation" by English Bible Translators.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

The Greek term ἀπόστολος (apostolos) simply meant "someone sent forth" -- essentially, "missionary" -- so could apply equally to men and women. In the restored gospel, we use the term exclusively as a recognition of Priesthood authority. In this modern sense, Junia was not an apostle. Your bishop was right.

There was, I do not know whether you know it, two apostolic colleges in ancient Christianity. The inner circle was the twelve apostles known to us all. The "outer" circle included both men and women. Among them was Junia. Everything has long been scientifically proven. So, Junia and other women were APOSTLES.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Then you don't know what you are talking about. Women do not hold the Priesthood, now or in the past.

I do not blame you before; that you do not know better. I did not know better before. Then I found in a bookshop, a book whose title attracted me magically. It was the book "God, a woman?," by Elga Sorge. She gave me titles of scientific books, where I could continue to research. The book itself was worthless for me.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Having sex with others and otherwise living after the manner of a married couple is another matter entirely, however.

If you love someone, feel attracted to someone, the desire, have sex with that person, comes mostly naturally. But is is OUR CHOICE, if we did it, or did it not!

Edited July 12, 2017 by Mormonheart

[Guest]

Quote

19 Now this man (Korihor) went over to the land of Jershon also, to preach these things among the people of Ammon, who were once the people of the Lamanites.

20 But behold they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.

21 And it came to pass that he caused that he should be carried out of the land. And he came over into the land of Gideon, and began to preach unto them also; and here he did not have much success, for he was taken and bound and carried before the high priest, and also the chief judge over the land.

Alma 30:19-21 (19-27)

Yup, I guess the Ammonites should have just let him continue talking.

Quote

59 And it came to pass that as he went forth among the people, yea, among a people who had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites, being led by a man whose name was Zoram—and as he went forth amongst them, behold, he was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead.

60 And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell.

Alma 30:59-60 (58-60)

So, I guess the Ammonites also caused his death.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Guest

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The "you're causing suicide" argument is the progressive Mormon's reductio ad Hitlerum version of logic.

The scriptures are the best counter to that argument...

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Given that the scriptures state that unrepentant sinners go to hell it seems that the physical mortal existence is of lesser importance then the spiritual.  Although the ideal is repentance and being whole both physically and spiritually.  But the scriptures are clear that if you must choose the spiritual should win always...  Sadly it seems that some members feel that supporting this young girl straight to hell is some how a good idea.  I mean there is a world of difference between knowing you can't stop them from making the wrong choices and wanting to remain part of their lives so you can help pull them back if and when they become ready... and supporting and encouraging them in their sins.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Never heard of the law of "cause and effect"?

Maybe you should do some reading up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

5 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

An example:
Two children are playing in the sandbox. One child (A) takes the bucket away from the other child (B). Child B wants his bucket back, child A wants to keep him, whereupon child B hits child A.
What is the cause (child A has stolen the bucket)? What is the consequence (child B hits back)?

Using spoiled children for your example? Seems about right.

Here's a better example:

Two children are playing in a sandbox. One child (A) keeps eating the sand. The other child (B) tells child A that eating sand is bad for them so child A storms off in a huff and slits his/her wrists.

Yep. Definitely Child B's fault. Undoubtedly. No question.

'Cause...you know...cause and effect.

5 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Anyone who claims that a homosexual member of the Church is himself responsible for suicide without taking into account the circumstances leading to suicide is either blind, ignorant, or without compassion.

Ah yes. The anyone-who-disagrees-with-my-progressive-view-of-things-is-stupid-or-evil argument.

Very convincing.

Edited July 12, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Anyone who claims that a homosexual member of the Church is himself responsible for suicide without taking into account the circumstances leading to suicide is either blind, ignorant, or without compassion.

Anyone who claims that a person committing suicide is not ultimately responsible for his own actions is either blind, ignorant, or is putting personal comfort above what is right.

Suicide is something I'm intimately familiar with.  

I know that a million other things could be blamed for it.  I know that over 100 people could individually or collectively be blamed for it.  But I do know with clarity of thought, in the light of pure knowledge that no one who is still free to live their own lives and who is free to make their own decisions can rightfully blame another for taking their own life.

Can you say others contributed?  Yes.  But the bottom line is that we are always responsible for our own actions.  To deny this is to deny the gift of agency.

When I was a child, it was easy to say that because my sister teased me, "she made me" get angry and "she made me" hit her.  It is only with the maturity of an adult that I can clearly see that was just childish rhetoric and nothing more.  I was the one who should be responsible for choosing whether to get mad or not, or hit her or not.

Feel compassion for them?  Absolutely.  Love them and hope the best for them?  Absolutely.  Tell them,"It's ok.  It's not your fault.  You just keep being you.  You don't need to change."  Absolutely NOT.

It is true that God didn't make us as mistakes.  But sin is a part of all of us.  Don't we need to change that?  No, Jesus will save us anyway.  Save us "IN" our sins.  Yes, that's the way the gospel works... NOT!

Edited July 12, 2017 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

Well, at the end of the day, God knows the contents of someone's heart and motivations perfectly, and we can only guess from our fallen, limited, insufficient perspectives.  We simply lack the tools to look inside another and cast anything but unrighteous judgment about how God will judge them.

Because that's what we're talking about here with suicide.  All things being equal: If you chose self-murder, you have sinned and go to hell.  And if you were not responsible for your actions and killed yourself, you committed no sin and go to heaven. 

So both sides need to reign it in a bit.  Humans can be on either side of that particular line, and we can't tell by looking. 

(Unless we've been that person.  Carb, glad you're here with us, and I respectfully demand that you outlive me.)

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Carb, glad you're here with us, and I respectfully demand that you outlive me.

I appreciate that.  I feel it is about time to let people know something.  You all know that this is something I've been struggling with my entire life.  And I've stated that for the past 10 years or so it has finally started getting better thanks to an angelic and perfect wife.

But just a couple of weeks ago something happened.  A good something.  An event happened that would normally have triggered an episode.  Darkness usually would have enveloped me and I would have either invoked some coping mechanisms or have started on my spiral downward.  But nothing happened.  There was no darkness.  I didn't realize until a while later how peculiar the sensation was.

So, this is how normal people feel.  Count your blessings, folks.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

I'm not sure about that. My former Bishop was very interested in "sexual confessions"

 

Okay I'm really not sure what you are trying to say/do or if we just have a communication gap here. 

Edited July 12, 2017 by MormonGator

[mirkwood]

15 hours ago, Mormonheart said:

Would Savannah have been silent? The usual phrases to say a testimony meeting?

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here in response to my comment.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Okay I'm really not sure what you are trying to say/do or if we just have a communication gap here. 

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

I have no idea what you are trying to say here in response to my comment.

I think she's running out of things to say.

[Mormonheart]

13 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I have no idea what you are trying to say here in response to my comment.

A testimony meeting has only one purpose: sharing one's own feelings and experiences with the gospel, and their teachings. Correct?
What Savannah did was exactly the purpose. Should she have been silent, or should she be blessed as a member of the Church? Have you ever seen Savannah in her face while she spoke? I lift it up!
I have seen a frightened but brave girl, excited, because of the testimony, anxiously looking at the reactions of the mostly bored listeners (the body language has betrayed it), and hurt and sad when the microphone was turned off.
Children, like all people in the Church, want to be loved and accepted. They want to be accepted as they are. Savannah is possibly lesbian. So what?

I see NO PROBLEM, except, she is practiced it.

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, I guess the Ammonites also caused his death.

I love irony and pointy remarks, but I feel this as out of place because there is no connection between Savannah's case and the quote from the Book of Mormon.

19 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Given that the scriptures state that unrepentant sinners go to hell it seems that the physical mortal existence is of lesser importance then the spiritual.  Although the ideal is repentance and being whole both physically and spiritually.  But the scriptures are clear that if you must choose the spiritual should win always...  Sadly it seems that some members feel that supporting this young girl straight to hell is some how a good idea.  I mean there is a world of difference between knowing you can't stop them from making the wrong choices and wanting to remain part of their lives so you can help pull them back if and when they become ready... and supporting and encouraging them in their sins.

Where has Savannah sinned? Because she was a lesbian? Because they did it in a testimony meeting? And thus something critical has said?
The world is not just white or black. It is colorful. There are not only heterosexual people, not just people who follow stubborn rules, no matter if they are good or bad (in Germany, we've gained more than enough experience)!

I do not know if Savannah and / or her parents are still members of the Church. I think they are no longer. But I hope they have not been excommunicated, because such people need the Church! People who say what they think. People who are free in themselves, and question things to come to a better understanding of the Gospel. This is my opinion in any case.

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah yes. The anyone-who-disagrees-with-my-progressive-view-of-things-is-stupid-or-evil argument.

I have no problems with other people's opinions, provided they are factually founded. "Because the church says," I do not admit, because the Church history of mankind, and our church has repeatedly shown that religion can be wrong (see the example of Galilei). And Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other prophets of the church were also wrong sometimes. To err is human, it is said here in Germany.
As I have been critical of our church since December last year, I note that I no longer want to be a member of the Church. That is why, on Monday, a month ago, I had written a letter to my bishop asking for my resignation from the church. Today a letter from the church (from my bishop) has come. It says that I was excommunicated for spreading false doctrines.
To my reasons, which I called him, he did not answer.
So now I am officially no longer a member of the Church. I'm sure my Account will be blocked here. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to give you my testimony:
I know the Church is true, but I also know that the Bishop acted because he was afraid of the consequences I would talk with members about it. I never wanted that. I just wanted to go quiet. No one in the Church would know anything about the real reasons. And I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen

PS: I'm still bisexual, but now I can live it. But it is too late for it.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Mormonheart
mistakes in spelling