New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[swampfrog]

It's pretty clear what happened. 12-year-old child entering into a charged cultural/religious dialogue by disrupting a religious service to make a point and filmed by multiple people who then quickly published an edited version of the incident. There's a lot of wrong there.

I don't agree it's clear what happened, not even "pretty" clear. The CNN article already showed that there is conflicting statements on how many people showed up that normally don't attend and what response they had to the prepared speech and aftermath. The mom says close friends that were not disruptive, nor was there a group, the Bishop said a group, and that they left jubilantly.

Intent and premeditation happen to matter a lot to me. The narrative being spun to my kids is that this was an innocent girl who wanted to reach out and feel acceptance and love from her religious community and also help others who feel similarly and received shame and condemnation in return. When I watched the video, that's not what the message said to me, however, I'm not willing to judge someone's intent by how my biased self receives their message. If I want to contest the narrative of innocence, I need information beyond what the video shows. Simply stating it's obvious what happened is not helpful to me in combating the narrative.

Certainly Hanlon's razor applies here, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence." Can this adequately be explained by stupidity/incompetence?

12-year-old entering a charged cultural/religious dialogue - true

Disrupted a religious service - true

To make a point - true, but she made several points, an important question for me (and others) is what points was she intending to make, and which ones were unintended because a 12-year-old can't possible navigate the complexities involved in this topic. Who helped or provided feedback in the preparation?

Filmed by multiple people - unknown, by way of anecdote the mom did state several filmed it. I've seen no confirmation that more than one person filmed it and again that matters.

quickly published an edited version - an edited version was published, but who edited and published it? Was this the same individual that filmed it? If not, how did they get a copy? Did they have permission to publish it?

To judge the reaction of the authority figures, all of this is essential. As I have stated previously, I believe a 12-year-old should be granted significant leeway in this situation, much more than an adult. I thinks it's proper to assume their intent is innocent. Cutting an adolescent off in this way is going to likely have serious ramifications in the family and the congregation, even if it wasn't broadcast to the world. It could have been dealt with much differently. Guidelines exist to correct teachings from the pulpit when the presiding authority feels the need to clarify, expound, or correct they can stand up after the speaker and do so. Even that wasn't required here, they could have pulled the family aside and privately let them know that what had happened was out of order and to please not have it happen again. However, if the family invited 30 people to show up to witness the "coming out of their daughter to the church", I fully understand the action taken.

But I fail to see how "she really wanted to do it" has any bearing at all on the narrative. I also seriously doubt that the kid arranged for the 30 or so outsiders to attend and film the event, thus guaranteeing that it goes viral, and putting a 12-yr-old kid in the middle of what is now an international clickbait story. Sorry, but that is shitty parenting.

And I fail to see how "she really wanted to do it" isn't the primary concern in the narrative. What is the "it" she wanted to do and why? Was the end result planned or simply opportunistic? Was someone hoping for the authority figure to make this choice?

Which of these 2 narratives was the intent or closer to the intent of the 12-year-old:

"I want to let you all know I'm gay, I've accepted it, I was born this way. I want to stay in the church but I will need your help to do that, can you accept me if I'm gay? Will you find a place for me even if in the future I choose to live in a same-sex relationship? Will I still be welcome here?"

"I want to let you all know I'm gay. Your beliefs about gay people are wrong. Deal with it."

And is the first appropriate for testimony meeting?

[myboynoah]

I don't agree it's clear what happened, not even "pretty" clear. The CNN article already showed that there is conflicting statements on how many people showed up that normally don't attend and what response they had to the prepared speech and aftermath. The mom says close friends that were not disruptive, nor was there a group, the Bishop said a group, and that they left jubilantly.

Intent and premeditation happen to matter a lot to me. The narrative being spun to my kids is that this was an innocent girl who wanted to reach out and feel acceptance and love from her religious community and also help others who feel similarly and received shame and condemnation in return. When I watched the video, that's not what the message said to me, however, I'm not willing to judge someone's intent by how my biased self receives their message. If I want to contest the narrative of innocence, I need information beyond what the video shows. Simply stating it's obvious what happened is not helpful to me in combating the narrative.

Certainly Hanlon's razor applies here, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence." Can this adequately be explained by stupidity/incompetence?

12-year-old entering a charged cultural/religious dialogue - true

Disrupted a religious service - true

To make a point - true, but she made several points, an important question for me (and others) is what points was she intending to make, and which ones were unintended because a 12-year-old can't possible navigate the complexities involved in this topic. Who helped or provided feedback in the preparation?

Filmed by multiple people - unknown, by way of anecdote the mom did state several filmed it. I've seen no confirmation that more than one person filmed it and again that matters.

quickly published an edited version - an edited version was published, but who edited and published it? Was this the same individual that filmed it? If not, how did they get a copy? Did they have permission to publish it?

To judge the reaction of the authority figures, all of this is essential. As I have stated previously, I believe a 12-year-old should be granted significant leeway in this situation, much more than an adult. I thinks it's proper to assume their intent is innocent. Cutting an adolescent off in this way is going to likely have serious ramifications in the family and the congregation, even if it wasn't broadcast to the world. It could have been dealt with much differently. Guidelines exist to correct teachings from the pulpit when the presiding authority feels the need to clarify, expound, or correct they can stand up after the speaker and do so. Even that wasn't required here, they could have pulled the family aside and privately let them know that what had happened was out of order and to please not have it happen again. However, if the family invited 30 people to show up to witness the "coming out of their daughter to the church", I fully understand the action taken.



And I fail to see how "she really wanted to do it" isn't the primary concern in the narrative. What is the "it" she wanted to do and why? Was the end result planned or simply opportunistic? Was someone hoping for the authority figure to make this choice?

Which of these 2 narratives was the intent or closer to the intent of the 12-year-old:

"I want to let you all know I'm gay, I've accepted it, I was born this way. I want to stay in the church but I will need your help to do that, can you accept me if I'm gay? Will you find a place for me even if in the future I choose to live in a same-sex relationship? Will I still be welcome here?"

"I want to let you all know I'm gay. Your beliefs about gay people are wrong. Deal with it."

And is the first appropriate for testimony meeting?

Seems you confirmed what I wrote. It's clear.

I'll trust the guy who cut this off. He was there and saw what was happening. There are a myriad of things a 12-year-old child could say in Church that would need to be censored. I don't trust that mother at all in terms of her intent.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't agree it's clear what happened, not even "pretty" clear. The CNN article already showed that there is conflicting statements on how many people showed up that normally don't attend and what response they had to the prepared speech and aftermath. The mom says close friends that were not disruptive, nor was there a group, the Bishop said a group, and that they left jubilantly.

Intent and premeditation happen to matter a lot to me. The narrative being spun to my kids is that this was an innocent girl who wanted to reach out and feel acceptance and love from her religious community and also help others who feel similarly and received shame and condemnation in return. When I watched the video, that's not what the message said to me, however, I'm not willing to judge someone's intent by how my biased self receives their message. If I want to contest the narrative of innocence, I need information beyond what the video shows. Simply stating it's obvious what happened is not helpful to me in combating the narrative.

Certainly Hanlon's razor applies here, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence." Can this adequately be explained by stupidity/incompetence?

I don't think anyone is implying this was all orchestrated by a 12-yr-old out of malice. The main argument is that her parents were foolish and/or malicious for allowing this to happen.

To make a point - true, but she made several points, an important question for me (and others) is what points was she intending to make, and which ones were unintended because a 12-year-old can't possible navigate the complexities involved in this topic. Who helped or provided feedback in the preparation?

Are you implying it wasn't her parents? By all accounts I have seen, her parents (mother specifically) helped prep her over several months. If it was someone else, her parents allowed it to happen.

Filmed by multiple people - unknown, by way of anecdote the mom did state several filmed it. I've seen no confirmation that more than one person filmed it and again that matters.

No, it doesn't matter. It was clearly an event. Somebody filmed it.

quickly published an edited version - an edited version was published, but who edited and published it? Was this the same individual that filmed it? If not, how did they get a copy? Did they have permission to publish it?

And these details matter how? These are all repercussions of the decision to let her do this.

To judge the reaction of the authority figures, all of this is essential. As I have stated previously, I believe a 12-year-old should be granted significant leeway in this situation, much more than an adult. I thinks it's proper to assume their intent is innocent. Cutting an adolescent off in this way is going to likely have serious ramifications in the family and the congregation, even if it wasn't broadcast to the world. It could have been dealt with much differently. Guidelines exist to correct teachings from the pulpit when the presiding authority feels the need to clarify, expound, or correct they can stand up after the speaker and do so. Even that wasn't required here, they could have pulled the family aside and privately let them know that what had happened was out of order and to please not have it happen again. However, if the family invited 30 people to show up to witness the "coming out of their daughter to the church", I fully understand the action taken.

Can we stop for a second and consider the perspective of the church leader? Let me tell you, it is no fun at all to sit up there and try to decide on the spur of the moment what you are going to let pass and what you should stop. A leader has a huge responsibility for conducting and overseeing a meeting and most err on the side of leeway. In this case, the leaders had to make an immediate decision. They don't get the benefit of time or hindsight.

Let me ask you this: If her testimony was written out well in advance and people knew enough about the "event" to attend and witness, why not approach the leader well before the meeting with the written testimony and ask "Do you have any problem if our daughter gives this testimony?" If the well-being and wishes of the daughter were truly what the parents were concerned about, why not take that approach? Given sufficient time to think it through, the bishop may have decided it was OK, but then would probably remind them not to film it. Or he may have been OK with a few edits. Or he may have said, "I am sorry, this would not be appropriate for a testimony meeting." and then the girl would have been spared the embarrassment. But to ambush a meeting like this and then second-guess the "authority figures" is not fair at all.

And I fail to see how "she really wanted to do it" isn't the primary concern in the narrative. What is the "it" she wanted to do and why? Was the end result planned or simply opportunistic? Was someone hoping for the authority figure to make this choice?

Which of these 2 narratives was the intent or closer to the intent of the 12-year-old:

"I want to let you all know I'm gay, I've accepted it, I was born this way. I want to stay in the church but I will need your help to do that, can you accept me if I'm gay? Will you find a place for me even if in the future I choose to live in a same-sex relationship? Will I still be welcome here?"

"I want to let you all know I'm gay. Your beliefs about gay people are wrong. Deal with it."

And is the first appropriate for testimony meeting?

Personally, I think 12 years old is far too young to come out in public, regardless of the venue and regardless of how she presented it.

[creekster]

I guess it's just me but after finally watching the video and reading the articles this looked pretty simple to me. Someone took a personal moment and exploited it for some political grandstanding. I don't think there needs to be much micro anslysid of motive or intent. The actions are pretty easy to figure out. And even if you think specific intent is important I don't think that is needed to teach your kids why this is not likely a good idea.

In fact, I pretty much agree with JL here.

[ERCougar]

A good friend of mine is well-connected with this family and paints a very different picture, FWIW. He tells me that she has been wanting to do this for months, and that the parents had tried to talk her out of it, but then finally relented. Friends had come (and filmed) because they knew it was an important moment for her and wanted to show her support. I know--friend of a friend--but it's more believable to me than the "shitty parenting" theory. I have a hard time believing a member father would go along with a disaffected mother using their daughter's sexuality as propaganda. Another leadership tidbit--the bishop was out of town and the presiding authority was the 1st counselor in the SP. The parents feel that had the Bishop been the presiding authority, she would not have been cut off, as he has taken a very progressive approach in helping her deal with her sexuality.

I think it's interesting that the reaction among Mormons centers on the ill intent of the daughter or mother. The content of the testimony is really not adversarial and with the exception of a few phrases, there isn't much to object to, even as a conservative Mormon. As others have pointed out, much more non-doctrinal and non-Christian riffing is allowed every month, so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the idea that she/they ruined an otherwise sacred moment in Mormon worship. Seems like any Mormon should have a hard time making that point with a straight face, but these are defensive times, I guess.

[creekster]

New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

A good friend of mine is well-connected with this family and paints a very different picture, FWIW. He tells me that she has been wanting to do this for months, and that the parents had tried to talk her out of it, but then finally relented. Friends had come (and filmed) because they knew it was an important moment for her and wanted to show her support. I know--friend of a friend--but it's more believable to me than the "shitty parenting" theory. I have a hard time believing a member father would go along with a disaffected mother using their daughter's sexuality as propaganda. Another leadership tidbit--the bishop was out of town and the presiding authority was the 1st counselor in the SP. The parents feel that had the Bishop been the presiding authority, she would not have been cut off, as he has taken a very progressive approach in helping her deal with her sexuality.

I think it's interesting that the reaction among Mormons centers on the ill intent of the daughter or mother. The content of the testimony is really not adversarial and with the exception of a few phrases, there isn't much to object to, even as a conservative Mormon. As others have pointed out, much more non-doctrinal and non-Christian riffing is allowed every month, so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the idea that she/they ruined an otherwise sacred moment in Mormon worship. Seems like any Mormon should have a hard time making that point with a straight face, but these are defensive times, I guess.

Filming for her support? Rushing to provide it to CNN was also for her support? Releasing an edited version was for her support too, I guess?

As with most things human I am sure there are a lot of mixed and inconsistent motives involved. But the fact is that this personal moment is being used for political football now and the parents seem complicit.

I hope it works out for her. I am sure she feels supported right now. But I am not certain that not just allowing but promoting a 12 year old's focus on her sexual life is a great idea. But I am just an old man, what do I know?

[Commando]

Filming for her support? Rushing to provide it to CNN was also for her support? Releasing an edited version was for her support too, I guess?

As with most things human I am sure there are a lot of mixed and inconsistent motives involved. But the fact is that this personal moment is being used for political football now and the parents seem complicit.

I hope it works out for her. I am sure she feels supported right now. But I am not certain that not just allowing but promoting a 12 year old's focus on her sexual life is a great idea. But I am just an old man, what do I know?

Yeah I would be all about the benefit of the doubt except that it was given the full editing suite treatment and top efforts have been made to blow this up. Doesn't seem like this little girl's plan at all, and is at minimum exploitative of a child as has been pointed out. And if the family is putting out a different account than that, I don't blame them- they would really look like assholes if they didn't explicitly deny what it plainly looks like happened.

[ERCougar]

Filming for her support? Rushing to provide it to CNN was also for her support? Releasing an edited version was for her support too, I guess?

As with most things human I am sure there are a lot of mixed and inconsistent motives involved. But the fact is that this personal moment is being used for political football now and the parents seem complicit.

I hope it works out for her. I am sure she feels supported right now. But I am not certain that not just allowing but promoting a 12 year old's focus on her sexual life is a great idea. But I am just an old man, what do I know?

I'm sure you know this, but she isn't the one who rushed out to CNN. That was the newnamenoah guy that distributed the temple videos, who obviously has an agenda. I doubt that was planned--maybe the video was leaked to him by a friend who became a little angry watching a 12 yr old girl be silenced? Maybe we know different parents, but I have a hard time believing most mothers, even those evil ex-Mormon ones, would rush to have their daughters paraded on CNN to make a religious point.

[creekster]

I'm sure you know this, but she isn't the one who rushed out to CNN. That was the newnamenoah guy that distributed the temple videos, who obviously has an agenda. I doubt that was planned--maybe the video was leaked to him by a friend who became a little angry watching a 12 yr old girl be silenced? Maybe we know different parents, but I have a hard time believing most mothers, even those evil ex-Mormon ones, would rush to have their daughters paraded on CNN to make a religious point.

You may be right about it all but the parents remain complicit. If you Invite a bunch of clowns to a party don't be surprised when it turns into a circus.

[jay santos]

A good friend of mine is well-connected with this family and paints a very different picture, FWIW. He tells me that she has been wanting to do this for months, and that the parents had tried to talk her out of it, but then finally relented. Friends had come (and filmed) because they knew it was an important moment for her and wanted to show her support. I know--friend of a friend--but it's more believable to me than the "shitty parenting" theory. I have a hard time believing a member father would go along with a disaffected mother using their daughter's sexuality as propaganda. Another leadership tidbit--the bishop was out of town and the presiding authority was the 1st counselor in the SP. The parents feel that had the Bishop been the presiding authority, she would not have been cut off, as he has taken a very progressive approach in helping her deal with her sexuality.

I think it's interesting that the reaction among Mormons centers on the ill intent of the daughter or mother. The content of the testimony is really not adversarial and with the exception of a few phrases, there isn't much to object to, even as a conservative Mormon. As others have pointed out, much more non-doctrinal and non-Christian riffing is allowed every month, so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the idea that she/they ruined an otherwise sacred moment in Mormon worship. Seems like any Mormon should have a hard time making that point with a straight face, but these are defensive times, I guess.

This reminds me of all the times over the years on Cougarboard when a poster who was peripherally connected to a BYU figure confirmed the motives of the BYU figure were a certain way, when it was critical for the BYU figure to have the general public perceive their motives as that way. Inside info, lol.

[Uncle Ted]

But I am just an old man, what do I know?

"Shut up Chimp or I'll go apesh*t on your *ss..."

[ERCougar]

You may be right about it all but the parents remain complicit. If you Invite a bunch of clowns to a party don't be surprised when it turns into a circus.

Complicit in what, exactly? You'll have to break down the metaphor for me, because I can't come up with a version that doesn't sound completely absurd, including the one that seems to have caught on here, involving an evil mother conspiring to parade her (pre)pubescent daughter's sexuality on national TV to attack her former church, while her still faithful husband looks on. That's obviously not what you're suggesting here, but then if you're not, what are you suggesting?

I have a problem with the guy who edited and distributed the video, but I have a hard time pinpointing anything the parents did.

EDIT:
Ok, I'm just now getting to reading (not scanning) what people have said and I see I'm mischaracterizing it a bit.
Here's my theory, based on common sense and a friend's account: the daughter, for whatever reason, felt compelled to come out in Sacrament Meeting. I don't think that's a fantastic idea, and I have a hard time believing the parents did either, but I also can't imagine what it would be like to be a gay teen in the church. Self-acceptance is probably a major theme in her life and was really the focus of her message, one that her parents may have helped edit, maybe even toned down (seriously--I've heard FAR more offensive stuff in F&T meeting). She's been in contact with the Bishop, and it sounds like they had built some sort of rapport, and the bishop may have even given the green light for this or a similar message in a testimony some week. On the day, the Bishop isn't there, and the counselor, who has no background in the situation, steps in to shut it down. Friends came to support, a few (or one) surreptitiously took videos, and became pissed when he shut her off, so they posted it on reddit. Newnamenoah, the one douchebag we can all agree on, edited and distributed (he admits to this) everywhere he could and it took off.

[ERCougar]

This reminds me of all the times over the years on Cougarboard when a poster who was peripherally connected to a BYU figure confirmed the motives of the BYU figure were a certain way, when it was critical for the BYU figure to have the general public perceive their motives as that way. Inside info, lol.

Oh, my friend has a gay son, so he certainly has an agenda (you know, that pesky love for one's children). And no, this isn't particularly inside info, as I mentioned in the post. Of course, I'm not seeing much inside info anywhere in this thread, so I guess you could just go with common sense on this.

[Commando]

Complicit in what, exactly? You'll have to break down the metaphor for me, because I can't come up with a version that doesn't sound completely absurd, including the one that seems to have caught on here, involving an evil mother conspiring to parade her (pre)pubescent daughter's sexuality on national TV to attack her former church, while her still faithful husband looks on. That's obviously not what you're suggesting here, but then if you're not, what are you suggesting?

I have a problem with the guy who edited and distributed the video, but I have a hard time pinpointing anything the parents did.

Except give the guy permission to edit and distribute the video?

[ERCougar]

Except give the guy permission to edit and distribute the video?

Yeah, maybe. That's a tough situation at that point. It's already out, and presumably (and by appearance), the daughter was ok with it. If you as a parent shut it down at that point, might there be a risk that that's seen by her as a sort of rejection? Add the emotional element of seeing your daughter shut down to it and I can understand making a decision you might regret. Doesn't make you a shitty parent, or even constitute shitty parenting, in my book.