12 yr old testimony drama

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is that a fat joke?

[NeuroTypical]

DH = Dear Husband, right?

(I mean, I've always assumed, but I don't really know...)

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The worst is in the new mommy forums. What the panda is a DH anyway?! And what if one doesn't like their husband. Does the "D" stand for "darned" then? They LOVE their acronyms there. I think it makes them all look like a bunch of pandas.

Boating forums are even more fun.  You get terms like "DPO" (darned previous owner), "boat unit" ($100), and "my admiral" (my wife).

Edited June 22, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

I'm pretty sure the federal government could easily out-acronym any group of people who actually wanted to communicate with each other.

[MrShorty]

My reactions to this scenario, in no particular order and possibly lacking in coherence and rationality.

I do not like the possibility that this is some kind of "setup" or "gotcha" thing. I am not convinced that it was some kind of setup, but neither am I convinced that it wasn't.

If it was some kind of "setup", then the ward leadership seems to have taken the bait hook, line, and sinker by shutting her down rather than letting her finish. I cannot think of a "Mormon tween bears testimony, comes out as gay, and is allowed to finish with no comment from the bishopric" scenario that gets near as much attention as this has.

Having listened to her speech (the video I saw included the parts that she was not allowed to give in the meeting), I am not certain exactly what she said that merited getting her mic shut off. As noted in other places, we have all witnessed or heard stories of all kinds of weird and inappropriate things shared in testimony meeting. I am not certain, other than this one was about homosexuality, what she said that triggered the leadership's response. Sure she testified that she was "created this way" and "hoped for a future relationship", but I am not sure why these are such egregious statements that  she could not be allowed to finish them.

As some have noted, she is only 12, and, possibly, is not old enough to be so certain of her orientation. Given her age, was this response warranted?

Are we so afraid of the gay agenda, that we have to shut down children who might be less acquainted with the theology that makes homosexuality so egregious? Perhaps this one stems from my own lack of understanding of why homosexuality is so opposed to our theology.

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, zil said:

I'm pretty sure the federal government could easily out-acronym any group of people who actually wanted to communicate with each other.

AMEN, sister.  My first military job I kept asking what all the acronyms stood for.  Sometimes I got an answer; sometimes no one knew; sometimes a dozen people said a dozen different expansions.  But the acronym itself was the term in every case.  When you said the acronym, everyone knew what it was, whether they knew what it stood for or not.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Are we so afraid of the gay agenda, that we have to shut down children who might be less acquainted with the theology that makes homosexuality so egregious?

Short answer. Yes.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

My reactions to this scenario, in no particular order and possibly lacking in coherence and rationality.

I do not like the possibility that this is some kind of "setup" or "gotcha" thing. I am not convinced that it was some kind of setup, but neither am I convinced that it wasn't.

If it was some kind of "setup", then the ward leadership seems to have taken the bait hook, line, and sinker by shutting her down rather than letting her finish. I cannot think of a "Mormon tween bears testimony, comes out as gay, and is allowed to finish with no comment from the bishopric" scenario that gets near as much attention as this has.

Having listened to her speech (the video I saw included the parts that she was not allowed to give in the meeting), I am not certain exactly what she said that merited getting her mic shut off. As noted in other places, we have all witnessed or heard stories of all kinds of weird and inappropriate things shared in testimony meeting. I am not certain, other than this one was about homosexuality, what she said that triggered the leadership's response. Sure she testified that she was "created this way" and "hoped for a future relationship", but I am not sure why these are such egregious statements that  she could not be allowed to finish them.

As some have noted, she is only 12, and, possibly, is not old enough to be so certain of her orientation. Given her age, was this response warranted?

Are we so afraid of the gay agenda, that we have to shut down children who might be less acquainted with the theology that makes homosexuality so egregious? Perhaps this one stems from my own lack of understanding of why homosexuality is so opposed to our theology.

 

Hum...lets see, the homosexual lifestyle, of which the twelve year old was promoting, is a direct affront and attack to Heavenly Fathers plan. This was a staged politically motivated attack towards and against the church and what the church teaches. Im not buying the whole sincerity of it because shes seen as an otherwise innocent 12 year old. No 12 year old does this kind of thing, which includes allies in friends there to specially record it for social media, on their own. I would of turned the mic off too and then probably would have reaffirmed Gods plan of the role of the man and woman. Im tired of everyone sudestepping around this subject afraid to hurt someones feelings.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Are we so afraid of the gay agenda, that we have to shut down children who might be less acquainted with the theology that makes homosexuality so egregious? 

I agree with you that tactically, it may have been better to just let her finish (though hindsight is always twenty-twenty, and her SP had no way of knowing how much longer she was going to go on.  And if she had from the pulpit announced her intention to someday practice polygamy, or adultery, or bestiality, or pedophila, and presented those choices as divinely sanctioned; I think it's a safe bet that she would have been shut down on those issues too).  

But, re the above--unless she's been living under a rock for . . . pretty much her whole life, it's not that she's less acquainted with the theology.  She rejects it outright.

She doesn't want to understand the reasons.  Her "allies" don't want her to understand the reasons. Because, sex.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because, sex.

From now on this will be my go to response for all explanation of my ideas.

[brotherofJared]

On 6/19/2017 at 2:37 PM, MormonGator said:

I feel sorry for the twelve year old, but the ward leadership did the right thing by cutting off her mic

I disagree. That is censure and while we have the right to do so, I think it would have been better too address it directly. It confused the girl and established negative environment and hurtful environment. We will be dealing with that for a long time.

I've played that scenario in my head a number of times, but no one can be prepared for every situation and always do the right thing. 

I'm my mind it goes like this: get the attention of the speaker first ask them to sit down and explain the purpose of the meeting and that the course of there talk is not acceptable. All while the mic is on. If the person objects, then turn the mic off. 

The "love all of God's children" speech that followed was a fail. It feel on dead ears because the actions spoke louder.

My 2¢.

[brotherofJared]

On 6/19/2017 at 3:59 PM, miav said:

Basically it was her coming out statement that she was no long an active member of the church.

I only have CNN's report on it. I didn't get the feel that her intention was to leave the church, though it probably is now. IMO, I believe she was championing her mother's cause who left the church because of the policy change... I can only imagine the dinner discussions over this, but I suspect that the daughter was following her own agenda in support of her mother which in her mind was so that people in church would accept her as she claimed she was... That didn't happen as she expected. 

I'll stop here on this one. My other thoughts will come out in future responses, hopefully before you guys excommunicated me.

[NeuroTypical]

6 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I'm my mind it goes like this: get the attention of the speaker first ask them to sit down and explain the purpose of the meeting and that the course of there talk is not acceptable. All while the mic is on. If the person objects, then turn the mic off. 

Hm... One thing to think about, is this videoed media event gives the next umpteen dozen rabble-rousers a heads-up on what will happen if they try the same thing with their children (or themselves).  Imagine how encouraged these people would be if handled your way.  Nobody just wants to be shut off and ignored.  Everybody wants to state their case and argue.  Imagine - an entire ward held captive while you denounce the bishop and the wrongs of the LDS church.  

[NeuroTypical]

5 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I suspect that the daughter was following her own agenda in support of her mother which in her mind was so that people in church would accept her as she claimed she was...

Wow - pretty impressive agenda for a 12 yr old.  I can buy wanting to prepare a speech.  But to also arrange for the hidden cameras?  Did she also do the editing and promotion to umpteen news agencies?  As well as invite a bunch of professional critics, including the guy who sneaks into the temple and secretly records our ceremonies for youtube publication?

We ain't gonna ex or ban ya boJ, but I am gonna respond with what I see are some weak spots in your reasoning.

Edited June 26, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[brotherofJared]

On 6/19/2017 at 3:59 PM, miav said:

The parents wanted to make a statement they knew they would get more sympathy if a 12 year old was asked to sit down verses an adult being asked to. They knew what would happen and they didn't protect their daughter. Too many parents now use their kids as pawns to their political or controversial views.

This is exactly what the policy was designed to prevent... The abuse of children. The mother who left the church over it, crushed her own children in a fit if self righteous indignation. It is the primary reason I don't like the word, righteous as a discription of a goo or godly trait. We are to often wrong about our own motives.

But, I do believe the child acted of her own volition.

[Guest]

@brotherofJared It was my cousins coming out statement. My cousin felt this video was an opportunity to share with her Facebook friends that she was no longer an active member of the church, or perhaps not a member any longer. 

I agree the child acted on her own, but I think her parents encouraged her. They also have more knowledge than Savannah and knew the likely outcome, they failed to protect their daughter.

Edited June 26, 2017 by miav

[brotherofJared]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

But to also arrange for the hidden cameras?

I didn't say she planned and planted the cameras. That's ur false assertion into what I did say.

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I didn't say she planned and planted the cameras. 

Correct.   You said:  "I suspect that the daughter was following her own agenda"

There was an obvious agenda, and as any of us can see, it included the following elements:

- hidden cameras
- video editing
- promotion of the final product to dozens of news agencies all over the world
- inviting a bunch of professional critics, including the guy who sneaks into the temple and secretly records our ceremonies for youtube publication

Maybe you didn't understand that all that stuff got arranged and planned beforehand?   Well, it obviously did.  Otherwise, you'd ask us to believe that it was just random chance that a bunch of church critics, including the guy who sneaks into the temple with a hidden camera, just happened to all visit some random ward one day, where they had absolutely no idea a mom would be video taping her daughter's misguided coming out efforts.

The daughter may have very well wanted to give this speech to a captive audience.  But her mom and nefarious ill-meaning friends took that want and manipulated it to their own nefarious ill-meaning ends.  

Or, the daughter did.  Someone did it, boJ.  I don't think it was the daughter. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

35 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I disagree. That is censure and while we have the right to do so, I think it would have been better too address it directly. It confused the girl and established negative environment and hurtful environment. We will be dealing with that for a long time.

I've played that scenario in my head a number of times, but no one can be prepared for every situation and always do the right thing. 

I'm my mind it goes like this: get the attention of the speaker first ask them to sit down and explain the purpose of the meeting and that the course of there talk is not acceptable. All while the mic is on. If the person objects, then turn the mic off. 

The "love all of God's children" speech that followed was a fail. It feel on dead ears because the actions spoke louder.

My 2¢.

All good points, for sure. Well said my friend. 

[brotherofJared]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

We ain't gonna ex or ban ya boJ, but I am gonna respond with what I see are some weak spots in your reasoning.

This forum reminds me of when I use to take my dog to the dog park. The social structure was conform or be squashed. I expect that of dogs, but not of people who I believe are of a common mind or ilk. I get better treatment on non-Mormon critc sites than I do here, but then, I suppose that's because it's us against them and if we turn on each other there, no Mormon will survive.

I eventually stopped taking my dog to the dog park which is what will probably happen here.

So, tell me. Why do you insert what I didn't say? Of course the parents, especially the mother, used their daughters actions to promote an agenda. But couldn't the daughter be genuinely and naively interested in what she thinks is a noble cause? I'm fully willing to believe she is. The parents encouragement leading to the catastrophe is absolutely on the parents. They knew, they led her to believe that her parents would be there to support her, so; to her, they will appear to be the heros and not the villains. Maybe sometime later in life she will realize that her parents let her out on a limb that they knew would be severed and she would fall. Unfortunately, she will probably so embroiled in bad decisions based in this experience that it will be too late. I believe that these can be healed, but only by the Savior's touch.

[Guest]

Whatever the motives or knowledge of the 12 yo girl, I doubt she was aware enough of probably consequences to be entirely responsible for her choices regarding this event.  Although I have a hard time accepting that a 12 year old girl could A)Be raised in the Church and B) prepare a statement like this and C) Expect everyone to believe she had no idea that the Church's position on homosexual activity is that it is a sin.

OF COURSE SHE KNEW THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH!  OF COURSE SHE KNEW SHE WAS REJECTING IT!

Regardless of the innocence or lack thereof from the 12 yo girl, no one can credibly claim this was not a staged event specifically designed to make a political statement that pits gays vs the Church.  In that context, there was no good intent from any of this.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Guest

[brotherofJared]

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hm... One thing to think about, is this videoed media event gives the next umpteen dozen rabble-rousers a heads-up on what will happen if they try the same thing with their children (or themselves).  Imagine how encouraged these people would be if handled your way.  Nobody just wants to be shut off and ignored.  Everybody wants to state their case and argue.  Imagine - an entire ward held captive while you denounce the bishop and the wrongs of the LDS church.  

Well, she wasn't denouncing the Bishop, but u have a point.

Please forgive my typos. I'm on a cell phone and I'm all thumbs with a phone that thinks it's smarter than I am... Well, it probably is when it comes to spelling...

[Guest]

@brotherofJared,

Who is it in your life that is gay?

Edited June 26, 2017 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

34 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I only have CNN's report on it. I didn't get the feel that her intention was to leave the church,

The girl hadn't been to church is like a year, and mom is very against dad "indoctrinating" the children.  The ned of her speech (that was cut off) also was pretty much a pronouncement of her leaving.  

[brotherofJared]

29 minutes ago, miav said:

It was my cousins coming out statement. My cousin felt this video was an opportunity to share with her Facebook friends that she was no longer an active member of the church, or perhaps not a member any longer. 

I misunderstood. Sorry about that.