- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What do you think of the Fair Mormon post “Of Testimonies and Twelve Year Olds” https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/06/18/testimonies-twelve-year-olds My first reaction is that I agree with it.
My take is that very few people use F&T meeting to share a testimony, but Savanna actually was sharing one. The criticism of her writing down her message beforehand makes no sense to me. It’s a topic that can be difficult to share about and can bring up lots of past hurt. You want to avoid offending members of the ward. Of course you are going to write it out beforehand. I also obviously disagree with the claims of “false teachings.” Yes, we get the spirit affirming our identity and worth all the time, and yes, it directly contradicts the teachings of the church.
My take is that the SP had a choice between being christlike and letting a 12 year old bear her testimony of her worth as a child of God, and defending the church’s teachings on the subject. I also think he didn’t see the first option for what it was.
I also think that’s a pretty low bar for being christlike. This isn’t even affirming her worth, but merely allowing her to bear testimony of it.
I suppose it would have been nice for you to point out what you agree with specifically, Rich. Frankly, I have a hard time with it and if this is typical of Brother Gordon and he lived in my ward I’d probably tend to avoid him (similar to how I avoid FairMormon). A Google search of his name turns up that Brother Gordon is president of FairMormon and a former bishop. It’s probably inevitable here that we talk about the video/testimony itself. If you haven’t seen it, Google it. My personal opinion is that she said nothing wrong or “against the church.” Brother Gordon’s opinion is clearly different from mine. I also don’t agree with the actions of the local leadership in turning off the microphone and asking her to sit down.
In his blog (I think that’s what it is) Brother Gordon quotes from the handbook and explains what F&TM is supposed to be, I suppose for those readers he thinks may come from outside the church. Along with the handbook quotes and explaining the purpose of fasting he says this:
Quote:These testimonies are not speeches or talks. They are not pre-written. They are not a time of advocacy. They are short, extemporaneously expressed, heartfelt feelings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how we have been strengthened by it.
Could have fooled me. Seriously, I have heard many speeches and talks over the years. I have experienced advocacy (think Family History or temple work for example) countless times. I have witnessed people giving pre-written testimonies, and while I have not done so myself, I have rehearsed before (including my most recent testimony this month). I have also experienced short heartfelt expressions about the gospel. In my own ward, I’m sorry to say, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. That said, I think this is a red herring. Frankly, who the heck cares if a 12-year-old wrote down her testimony? She’s 12 and was doing something that was clearly difficult for her and as it turns out it was difficult for good reason. I honestly cannot imagine the microphone being turned off and the girl (or anyone) being asked to sit down in my ward – and sometimes I think it ought to happen! (but not in this case)
Brother Gordon doesn’t cite his sources about how he knows the background info from the mother or that a friend recorded the testimony, I assume he got it from the reddit he mentions in passing. Poor journalism, but it is only a blog. Nevertheless, he’s not done with the red herring.
Quote:As this girl’s parents know, Fast and Testimony meeting isn’t a place for giving speeches, which is what she did. She had her speech all written out and read it from the pulpit. I wish her parents had talked with her more about appropriate forums and venues. This isn’t about whether a girl is struggling with her sexuality, or about how a Church leader handled it. This is a clear case of hijacking a meeting, promoting false teachings, and exploiting a child’s inexperience to create a media event. Savannah was likely allowed to say much more from the pulpit than an adult would have been allowed to say.
Again, I don’t know that it matters to anyone other than Brother Gordon that she wrote out her testimony. Laying blame on the parents is also a red herring. Were it my daughter I would have supported her as well. I believe her remarks were heartfelt and sincere, and I would much rather hear a testimony such as hers – written or not – than the usual kid’s testimony “I know the church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, I love my Mommy and Daddy….” Contrary to Brother Gordon’s opinion, I think this was exactly about this young woman struggling with her sexuality and reaching out to her tribe for acceptance and support. It is not at all about hijacking or false teachings and I’m not sure what he thinks she said was false. And I don’t think she was allowed to say more than an adult would have been allowed to say – in a recent stake conference a counselor in the SP was
assigned by the AAto give a talk about acceptance of gays and told a heartfelt story very similar to those found on Mormonandgay.org. Brother Gordon:
Quote:Even mentioning her sexuality, could be seen as appropriate within a testimony given during Fast and Testimony meeting. Next, in an actual testimony, you would expect something about how some life event, has helped her to grow spiritually. But, Savannah doesn’t do that.
“Savannah doesn’t do that.” Neither do 95% (or more) of the testimonies I hear each F&TM.
Quote:In the middle of her speech she says, “I believe God would tell me if I was wrong.”
Well, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe he did exactly that. We do not believe she is a “horrible sinner” for being who she is, but you will find our teachings on family and relationships clearly stated in the document titled “The Family, a Proclamation to the World.” This is a fundamental belief of our faith. In essence, she is saying that she doesn’t trust the teachings of Jesus Christ given through our prophets today.
OK, follow the prophet, I get that. I also believe in Elder Oaks two lines of communication. And I believe Pres. Uchtdorf (quoted on Moromonandgay.org):
Quote:“God does not look on the outward appearance. I believe that He doesn’t care one bit if we live in a castle or a cottage, if we are handsome or homely, if we are famous or forgotten. Though we are incomplete, God loves us completely. Though we are imperfect, He loves us perfectly. Though we may feel lost and without compass, God’s love encompasses us completely.
“He loves us because He is filled with an infinite measure of holy, pure, and indescribable love. We are important to God not because of our résumé but because we are His children. He loves every one of us”
Also from Mormonandgay.org:
Quote:As we seek answers and direction for our personal journey, we can trust God and the power inherent in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ took upon Himself the sins of the world, He also experienced every pain and affliction any human being might experience.
I think Savannah was expressing just such trust.
Brother Gordon:
Quote:While talking about the love of God, which we can all agree with, her speech was calling out the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as false. It follows the pattern of a typical exit narrative which reads, I used to believe the Church is true, but now I find joy and happiness outside of Church teachings. I hope you will give up your false beliefs and follow me. Anyone advocating that from the pulpit should be asked to step down, even if they are twelve years old.
Nowhere did I hear Savannah say she was advocating leaving the church or following her. Additionally, she was stating her own beliefs, perfectly acceptable in a testimony or other meeting, she was not calling out the church.
Fortunately Brother Gordon doesn’t speak for the church. I suppose there are many who might say the same about me. Unfortunately, Brother Gordon does have an audience of like thinkers.
On the one hand, what she said did expressly go against the counsel, doctrines, and teachings of the Church. Like it or not, it is explicitly against the commandments (according to the Church) to enter into a same-sex relationship, and especiallyto encourage others to do the same. Had she not advocated for entering into a same-sex relationship, and instead focused on how God loved and accepted her, even though she was gay, I think the SP would’ve let her finish her testimony. Quote:I wish Savannah the best no matter what her future choices might be. I hope that her parents, step in to de-escalate this event. Every child needs to be allowed to grow. I think of those young people I know who thought they were gay when they were 12 or 13, and are now in happy heterosexual relationships. I care for one of them very much. I would hate to have had her in the headlines while she was deciding which direction her life might go.
I also think this quote brings up a very good point. This is also why I am against hormone-therapy and sex-changes for those under 18. It’s a BIG-DEAL, one that requires a lot of sacrifice, and is a very difficult and challenging process. The teenage years are a difficult time, and the worst thing you can do is paint yourself into a corner, only to realize, “oops”, I’m not “that way” at all. Now, I can’t say I understand who she is or what she is feeling. Whoever she is, however she is feeling, what whatever she decides to do about it, should be respected. She should be loved all the more.
But on the other hand, I believe that every testimony has the right to be spoken. She should’ve been allowed to voice her beliefs. Folks don’t have to like it; they don’t have to agree, they don’t have to listen. They don’t have to accept her, fellowship her, love her. That’s their prerogative. But as Volaire/Evelyn Hall said,
Quote:I [might] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I’m not trying to be argumentative Dande, but where exactly did she advocate for others to enter into same sex relationships? Is it in here somewhere and I’m missing it? Quote:I hope someday to go on dates, go to school dances, to hold hands and to go off to college. I hope to find a partner and have a great job. I hope to get married and have a family.
I know these dreams and wishes are good and right. I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy. I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am and would never ask me to live my life alone or with someone I am not attracted to.
It is against church policy to enter into a same sex relationship and/or marriage, a policy I happen to disagree with. She says she knows she can have those things as a lesbian and be happy. In my observation of people I know who have entered into same sex relationships (which does include church members) she’s absolutely right – she can be happy. She may not be a member of the church anymore, and I think she recognizes that, but she can be happy. Excommunication is not a given or automatic, at least not in my neck of the woods (I think Brother Gordon’s experiences might be different). I don’t see any advocacy there nor do I see any encouragement of anyone else to join her is entering into such relationships – she’s only talking about herself and her opinion. Contrary to what some believe, the church does not teach that we have a monopoly on happiness. We all sin, we’re all imperfect. “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you do.”
Honestly, I am torn a bit about this – for two simple reasons. 1) I think she shouldn’t have been stopped, since she was stating her sincere beliefs and desires, and because I have heard a lot of stuff over the pulpit in my lifetime that was worse doctrinally than what she actually said. I also have read that she is best friends with the Bishop’s daughter and has a great relationship with him – and he didn’t stop it.
2) However, I am troubled by her parents filming it, right from the start, and posting it publically. That part feels planned, and it feels like ax-grinding. I have no idea if their intent was to embarrass the Church and advocate against it (or pressure for change) but it feels that way. It feels like a sincere young woman being manipulated and used as a weapon. I would be livid if someone filmed one of my children’s testimonies and posted it publically, and I wouldn’t dream of doing it myself. Literally, the thought would not cross my mind.
My thoughts have already been covered, I’ll say the same things but in my own words. I’m conflicted.
The fact that there were cameras trained on her makes the whole event feel like a setup. It feels like the parties that filmed the event had a good idea of how things would turn out and they wanted to use the event to further an agenda. I’m thinking they got exactly what they wanted. Basically what Ray said at the end of his post.
That said, I wasn’t terribly impressed by the fairmormon response…
Quote:These testimonies are not speeches or talks. They are not pre-written. They are not a time of advocacy. They are short, extemporaneously expressed, heartfelt feelings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how we have been strengthened by it. On lds.org it says:
“A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.
:think: If we’re going to set precedent for turning the mic off by how well a testimony adheres to this definition we might as well turn F&T meeting into a 70 minute moment of silence for Jesus.
Some may read those guidelines and come away with a testimony being limited to what was listed but that’s not what the statement actually says. It says that the
foundationof a testimony is based on those things. You can build lotsof stuff on a foundation. I think there’s a growing consensus on all sides that being gay ins’t a choice and I feel like the subject of homosexuality tends to get people’s defenses up and comes with a lot of baggage so I wanted to change the subject matter to a different demographic where there’s a consensus that there is no choice. Let’s pretend for a moment that being a white male that is past the age of 65 is a huge cultural taboo. Let’s take the things the blog entry cited Savannah as having said in this new context. Pretend a 65+ year old white male said the same things during a F&T meeting in this imaginary culture:
No part of me is a mistake.
I do not choose to be this way and it is not a fad.
I know I am not a horrible sinner for being who I am.
I know I can have all of these things as a 66 year old white male and be happy.
I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect just the way I am and would never ask me to live my life a different age, gender, and race that I am capable of being.
I believe God would tell me if I was wrong.
It seems silly… except to a culture that doesn’t feel comfortable around 65+ year old white males. They might be tempted to turn his mic off.
Quote:In the middle of her speech she says, “I believe God would tell me if I was wrong.”
Well, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe he did exactly that. We do not believe she is a “horrible sinner” for being who she is, but you will find our teachings on family and relationships clearly stated in the document titled “The Family, a Proclamation to the World.” This is a fundamental belief of our faith. In essence, she is saying that she doesn’t trust the teachings of Jesus Christ given through our prophets today.
This portion of the blog stood out.
Well, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I don’t believe he did… am I in error? Am I no longer considered a part of “we” because of my belief?
Plus, “she is saying that she doesn’t trust the teachings of Jesus Christ given through our prophets today.” is putting a lot of words into her mouth.
Old Timer wrote:
Honestly, I am torn a bit about this – for two simple reasons.1) I think she shouldn’t have been stopped, since she was stating her sincere beliefs and desires, and because I have heard a lot of stuff over the pulpit in my lifetime that was worse doctrinally than what she actually said. I also have read that she is best friends with the Bishop’s daughter and has a great relationship with him – and he didn’t stop it.
However, I am troubled by her parents filming it, right from the start, and posting it publically. That part feels planned, and it feels like ax-grinding. I have no idea if their intent was to embarrass the Church and advocate against it (or pressure for change) but it feels that way. It feels like a sincere young woman being manipulated and used as a weapon. I would be livid if someone filmed one of my children’s testimonies and posted it publically, and I wouldn’t dream of doing it myself. Literally, the thought would not cross my mind.
I don’t know for sure who recorded it. The blog indicates it was a friend, but judging by the angle it seems like the person doing it knew she or he shouldn’t have been – they weren’t holding it up to get a good view without the people in the way (and it is apparently a Utah ward where most are probably aware of the rules). Either way, I do agree that part does seem planned. Perhaps the original idea was just to have it for her. I know people who record their talks (audio, not video, and there is a distinction in the handbook). On the other hand, it could have been recorded for exactly what happened. According to what I read about her parents here
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-girl-savannah-comes-out-gay-lesbian-congregation-mic-cut-off-a7795746.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-girl-savannah-comes-out-gay-lesbian-congregation-mic-cut-off-a7795746.html dande48 wrote:
I also think this quote brings up a very good point. This is also why I am against hormone-therapy and sex-changes for those under 18. It’s a BIG-DEAL, one that requires a lot of sacrifice, and is a very difficult and challenging process. The teenage years are a difficult time, and the worst thing you can do is paint yourself into a corner, only to realize, “oops”, I’m not “that way” at all.
This is off topic, but fyi, transition for pre-puberty trans kids is social, not hormonal or surgical. Also, the first step for teens isn’t hormone replacement therapy, but puberty blockers, for exactly the reason you described. You don’t want to paint the kid into a corner by forcing them to go through the wrong puberty.
I have no comment on thinking kids should wait until 18 before undergoing HRT.
DarkJedi wrote:On the other hand, it could have been recorded for exactly what happened.
I think it’s possible that it was for both reasons. If it turned out well, there’s something for Samantha to have to remember. If it turns out poorly, there’s something that can be used to raise awareness of how queer kids are treated in the lds church. Either way, something good comes out of it.
I do find it strange that it took so long for the news to explode. If I remember correctly, the incident happened 3 to 4 weeks ago. Yet NewNameNoah only posted the video more recently. Imo, that’s a point in favor of the filming not being originally intended to bring bad publicity to the church. It looks like NNN heard about what happened and then reached out to the family, instead of it being pre-planned.
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m not trying to be argumentative Dande, but where exactly did she advocate for others to enter into same sex relationships? Is it in here somewhere and I’m missing it?
I’m not going to get into whether same-sex relationships are, or are not approved by God. But it is explicitly against the “Commandments of God” as defined by the leadership of the LDS Church, and is treated as a serious sin in magnitude next to the shedding of innocent blood. Most of us disagree with the absolute authority of Church leadership, in dictating how God feels about this or that. But, in assessing the actions of both the girl, and the SP counselor, it’s important to keep this in mind.
You’re right, DJ. She didn’t explicitly advocate others to follow suit. At most, it was implicit advocation, encouraging by example. “This is who I am, this is what I’m going to do, and I have God’s approval. I will be happier this way.” It is vindicating the violation of a commandment, and open opposition to Church authority (whether you agree with it or not).
Those are good points. DW shared this with me last night. It was pointed out to her by a facebook friend that dismissed it as political propaganda.
DW was very touched by this young woman. This and perhaps other things have her rethinking her position on SSM.
I was explaining that this can be both a young woman’s sincere testimony AND political propaganda. Very recently there was an issue over the sandy hook shooting. For the parents of the sandy hook victims they may honestly just want to express their grief and to help prevent the same tragedy from befalling other children/families. However, how that message gets promoted and what solutions get put forward quickly turn political.
That is also not to say that “political” automatically means something akin to manipulative or calculating. The women’s suffrage and civil rights movements were political movements and yet deeply personal, moral, and ideological for those that fought for them.
I do suppose that there could be some individuals that are using this girl as a pawn for the movement (similar to how the church utilized George Reynolds) and there are probably some good questions about whether a twelve year old girl can be mentally developed enough to be fully informed of the long term consequences of her very public testimony.
If I were the parent, I could see myself supporting (with reservations) my child in giving the testimony (if that was something that they felt strongly about). I would not have supported the taping or the dissemination via social media. My ultimate goal would be to protect my child and help them to be a happy and well adjusted adult. More likely my Papa bear instincts would lead me to put as much distance as possible between my gay child and the LDS church.
I agree with lots of what’s been said. What a mess.
But Bro. Gordon, and it’s perfect right to say whatever he wants, just escalated matters. The idea that twelve year-old don’t discuss such things is patently false. A twelve year-old boy in our ward gave a very touching Father’s Day talk yesterday in which he discussed in fair detail his plans for marriage and fatherhood.
Who has enough fingers and toes to count the non-kosher testimonies we’ve heard? But I’ve never seen someone’s mic cut. And I’ve only seen a follow up comment from a leader once. Most of it just floats out and around and people make of it what they will.
(And recording is just wrong.)
dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m not trying to be argumentative Dande, but where exactly did she advocate for others to enter into same sex relationships? Is it in here somewhere and I’m missing it?
I’m not going to get into whether same-sex relationships are, or are not approved by God. But it is explicitly against the “Commandments of God” as defined by the leadership of the LDS Church, and is treated as a serious sin in magnitude next to the shedding of innocent blood. Most of us disagree with the absolute authority of Church leadership, in dictating how God feels about this or that. But, in assessing the actions of both the girl, and the SP counselor, it’s important to keep this in mind.
You’re right, DJ. She didn’t explicitly advocate others to follow suit. At most, it was implicit advocation, encouraging by example. “This is who I am, this is what I’m going to do, and I have God’s approval. I will be happier this way.” It is vindicating the violation of a commandment, and open opposition to Church authority (whether you agree with it or not).
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree and be thankful for our wards/stakes that neither of us are judges in Israel.
ETA: FWIW, here is the story my SPC shared in stake conference at the instruction of the AA (the AA didn’t choose the story, he did assign the specific topic).
https://www.tofw.com/blogs/pure-love-healed-our-familyhttps://www.tofw.com/blogs/pure-love-healed-our-family” class=”bbcode_url”> Not to beat a dead horse, but I don’t think any of these people (including the AA and SPC) are openly opposing the church by sharing this story.
(My favorite part of the story is “I’m the grandma so what I say goes.”)
I am hearing two sides of the event. Often times, truth is somewhere in the middle, and often times people will pull out of it what they want to support their own views. I’m a bit concerned this 12 yr old will be in the middle of so many adults with agendas. I hope her parents can focus on her. Sounds like one side of the story:
Quote:This is being promoted as a heartfelt moment of tenderness, only to be ruined by the bad stake leader, who happened to be on the stand that day, who asked her to sit down. The mom writes, “…this stake member chose to hurt my child, I don’t know his reasons.”[
In addition…this appears staged. People invited. Typed out (who wrote it, the 12 yr old, or input from others?), and video made of it?
That makes it look suspicious on intent. Not that all of that means it isn’t real or sincere and a topic that could be shared in church…just something telling me there are some red flags on how to react to this.
The other side:
Quote:After Savannah spoke, the Church leader conducting stood up and repeated the uplifting and true statements that Savannah made. There was no harsh language. There was no condemnation. There was no negative judgement. There was no lack of support for Savannah as a daughter of God. What occurred was a stake leader protecting the purpose of the Sacrament meeting and refocusing it on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So…the leader was loving? Or the leader “hurt my child, I don’t know his reasons”?
I hope a 12 year old is not being put in the middle of an issue a bunch of adults want to go on and on about, without regard to the individual. Not sure what I think of this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.