Little girl has her mic turned off during F&T meeting

[_Xenophon]

WD, allow me to propose a more "middle of the road" sequencing of events:

-Savannah is legitimately attracted to members of the same sex (I believe we can all remember being attracted to people at 12).

-She wants to share this and other ideas she has related to her understanding of God's work during F&T (whether this is an appropriate venue for this is beside the point).

-Wanting to clearly express herself and talk through her testimony, she asks her mother to help in preparing.

-The mother, proud of her daughter, informs some family/friends of what Savannah will be doing that Sunday.

-Thinking this will be a momentous occasion (perhaps anticipating a bad reaction, but I prefer to assume the family was expecting a positive response) the family decides to record the testimony.

-Testimony is born. Due to its nature and not knowing how else to respond, Bishop shuts mic off and ushers Savannah off stage.

-Given Savannah's understandably emotional reaction to what happens, family/friends leave together in a bit of a huff.

-Hoping for a bit of retribution and to perhaps prevent further incidents like this, family shares recording of what happens.

-All hell breaks lose.

All feelings about homosexuality or church policy aside, this is a pretty neutral reading for both parties. You are correct I think in that the reaction to this has been over the top (that is to be expected with such a loaded topic). The bishop obviously could have responded differently but most of that is born in the church's stance towards homosexuality. The family could have just shrugged it off and pressed forward but they didn't. I happen to agree with their decision to do so.

As to your thoughts on the November policy, I don't find much to disagree with there. I think most here would have said that was big reason for its institution in the first place. However I believe the LDS church claimed otherwise, that it was "for the children". It isn't, it is to assist them in continuing to control the narrative (which is in their best interest even if wrong-headed).

[_Xenophon]

I'm interested in the claim that there was a disruptive group present during the F&T meeting. Who is lying? What would be the motivation for either party to lie about a group of people either being there or not being present.

- Doc

I'm not sure anyone is purposefully lying here. I remember plenty of times being up at the podium looking out over the chapel and thinking that a particular group was being "disruptive". All their movement was sure distracting me! Later I would ask my wife about it and she would be completely oblivious. If there was a group of 5+ in the back that all got up to leave (with accompanying kids and gear) it could have easily seemed disruptive to the Bishopric.

[_Chap]

If there was a group of 5+ in the back that all got up to leave (with accompanying kids and gear) it could have easily seemed disruptive to the Bishopric.

I seems to me from reading accounts by many people on this board over the years that the average bishop is likely to classify as disruptive pretty well any significant activity that he has not actually issued someone instructions to carry out.

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay so here it is. Shades has the links to the posts in question that need moderator action in terms of editing or possibly permanent relocation to Telestial, whatever he decides. Please do not copy any of WD's previous inappropriate comments going forward for right now because this thread stands a good chance of going back to Terrestrial.

[_Xenophon]

I seems to me from reading accounts by many people on this board over the years that the average bishop is likely to classify as disruptive pretty well any significant activity that he has not actually issued someone instructions to carry out.

My take exactly, Chap. Not to mention he is already a bit defensive at having his questionable reaction called out and it isn't surprising that he sees it this way

[_Xenophon]

I'd leave them so people can see what a Mormon is all about.

- Doc

Reminds me of one of my favorite quote from Dr. Shades (that funnily enough is in the thread of MsJack destroying WS)

I understand your point, but here's my thinking on the matter: If someone comes here and insists on building a monument to his own inanity, brick-by-brick and post-by-post, then who am I to try and stop him?

I say we allow him to complete his monument for all the world to see. If we stop him too early, then partially-built monument risks going unnoticed.

[_JLHPROF]

I'm interested in the claim that there was a disruptive group present during the F&T meeting. Who is lying? What would be the motivation for either party to lie about a group of people either being there or not being present.

- Doc

Disruption is in the eye of the beholder.
People who vocally support a cause or position can be seen ad disruptive by those who oppose it and vice versa.

I am sure the "opposed" shouters in General Conference don't consider vocally opposing a sustaining as a particularly disruptive act (say, as compared to the street protesters with signs). Whereas the faithful sustainers do.

[_Lemmie]

I'd leave them so people can see what a Mormon is all about.

- Doc

Reminds me of one of my favorite quote from Dr. Shades (that funnily enough is in the thread of MsJack destroying WS)

I understand your point, but here's my thinking on the matter: If someone comes here and insists on building a monument to his own inanity, brick-by-brick and post-by-post, then who am I to try and stop him?

I say we allow him to complete his monument for all the world to see. If we stop him too early, then partially-built monument risks going unnoticed.

Wow. Some sock puppets just need to hear the message twice, huh?!

[_Lemmie]

Good points, Xenophon, I would only disagree slightly with this:

-Given Savannah's understandably emotional reaction to what happens, family/friends leave together in a bit of a huff.

if I see a mother with a 12 year old sobbing and in shock from being publicly humiliated, I wouldn't classify her taking the child out of the meeting as her family leaving "in a bit of a huff."

(regarding other comments: Water Dog-Schryver's misogynistic and homophobic posts in this thread are disgusting.)

[_Xenophon]

Good points, Xenophon, I would only disagree slightly with this:

-Given Savannah's understandably emotional reaction to what happens, family/friends leave together in a bit of a huff.

if I see a mother with a 12 year old sobbing and in shock from being publicly humiliated, I wouldn't classify her taking the child out of the meeting as her family leaving "in a bit of a huff."

Perhaps huff has too much negative connotation to it, but I just imagine that if my child had been royally snubbed by the bishop I probably wouldn't worry too much about leaving as quietly as I might have in a normal circumstance. If the family was miffed, I don't fault them at all. This is just my take on trying to assume the bishop probably wasn't outright lying when he said the caused a "disturbance".