Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JLHPROF

Elder Bednar - "There are no homosexual members of the church."

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gray said:

He might want to check with the Mormons and gays website.

But does that mean there are also no heterosexual members of the church, since we're not defined by that kind of thing?

Yep, all Mormons are bi.

Share this post


Link to post

Just so I'm clear, is Elder Bednar saying that I wasn't a heterosexual until my wedding night?  

Or is he saying the even to this day, I am not a "heterosexual" but instead am an androgynous human who is choosing to engage in heterosexual behavior? 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, is Elder Bednar saying that I wasn't a heterosexual until my wedding night?

Or is he saying the even to this day, I am not a "heterosexual" but instead am an androgynous human who is choosing to engage in heterosexual behavior?

Neither.  I think.  If I'm understanding you.

He is saying that sexual attraction is an inborn trait that is either cultivated or overcome.
And he is saying the choice to engage in sexual activity is just that, a choice.

You are not an "androgynous" human being.  You are, according to your profile, male.  You have attractions to people (hopefully appropriate ones).
You choose who you engage in sexual activity with, you have the ability to act instead of being acted upon.

IMO that is what he is saying.  Being homosexual or heterosexual isn't a type of individual, any more than being a jealous or a angry is a type of individual.
Our feelings are not our identities.  Well, sometimes they are, but they don't have to be.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I wish he had answered the question in the spirit (or intent) that it was asked.  It's a dodge (but I would guess he answered it as best he could and in the least inflammatory way he could think of on the spot).

.

Actually, if you watch the full video, it wasn't a dodge at all. It was a full and detailed answer. He describes exactly how a member who is gay can remain in full and faithful standing. 

The initial opening line is something of an unfortunate distraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, canard78 said:

Actually, if you watch the full video, it wasn't a dodge at all. It was a full and detailed answer. He describes exactly how a member who is gay can remain in full and faithful standing. 

The initial opening line is something of an unfortunate distraction. 

And it's that one line many will focus on, unfortunately.  Thanks for the additional info, I'll try to watch it later today.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Neither.  I think.  If I'm understanding you.

He is saying that sexual attraction is an inborn trait that is either cultivated or overcome.
And he is saying the choice to engage in sexual activity is just that, a choice.

You are not an "androgynous" human being.  You are, according to your profile, male.  You have attractions to people (hopefully appropriate ones).
You choose who you engage in sexual activity with, you have the ability to act instead of being acted upon.

IMO that is what he is saying.  Being homosexual or heterosexual isn't a type of individual, any more than being a jealous or a angry is a type of individual.
Our feelings are not our identities.  Well, sometimes they are, but they don't have to be.

The problem is sexuality is more than just who we have sex with.  To say someone who is attracted to others of the same sex, exclusively, to not be homosexual is to suggest something that is not true.  Jealous and angry are emotions that every one of us feels from time to time.  Whatever the case, the descriptions of us are used to describe who we are.  It's kinda silly to try to deny it in order to make a point about who we have sex with is our choice.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And it's that one line many will focus on, unfortunately.  Thanks for the additional info, I'll try to watch it later today.

True. But given the very sensitive reality of this topic perhaps when church leaders speak about they would be well-advised to be more tactful in the language and rhetoric they use. 

If this statement gets a lot of attention in the bloggernacle... and let's face it, we need something to talk about... it's partly a headline of his own, likely unintentional, making. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Elder Bednar -  "There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh.  There are many different types of challenges."

 

 

 

Having tried to be as charitable as possible to Elder Bednar, I am concerned that he appears to lump homosexuality in as a "challenge" in the flesh.

 

It is simply one of a host of behaviors denominated by Elder Bednar, and the Church he represents, as "sinful."

The message is that homosexuality is an orientation to be overcome, rather than a gift from God to be embraced.

I think this type of message is destructive and should be condemned.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Could be an assumption, of course.  And yet we are to take with us into the next world the same proclivities we have here. 

It's weird, though, it used to be that same sex attraction was not natural so much so that it was something someone was "not born with" as it was said.  Now it seems pretty well acknowledged that people are naturally inclined to it.  This is an issue we simply haven't seemed to know much about. 

I have never seen their statements presented as an assumption; always a confident assertion. 

And being "born with it" does not negate it being a condition belonging strictly to mortality. Many maladies are congenital. These will all be removed in the resurrection whether they occurred before or after birth. 

Furthermore, if same-sex attraction is a physical condition, as you seem to presuppose here, all the more reason to assume it will be among the conditions pertaining to mortality that will be removed in the ressurection. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have never seen their statements presented as an assumption; always a confident assertion. 

Doesn't matter.  It's likely they don't know and are just guessing.  Kind of like when leaders confidently asserted the reasons for the priesthood ban.  It's happened. 

 

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And being "born with it" does not negate it being a condition belonging strictly to mortality. Many maladies are congenital. These will all be removed in the resurrection whether they occurred before or after birth. 

Furthermore, if same-sex attraction is a physical condition, as you seem to presuppose here, all the more reason to assume it will be among the conditions pertaining to mortality that will be removed in the ressurection. 

It could be.  I can agree it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Having tried to be as charitable as possible to Elder Bednar, I am concerned that he appears to lump homosexuality in as a "challenge" in the flesh.

It is simply one of a host of behaviors denominated by Elder Bednar, and the Church he represents, as "sinful."
The message is that homosexuality is an orientation to be overcome, rather than a gift from God to be embraced.

I think this type of message is destructive and should be condemned.

I think it's accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, JLHPROF said:

I think it's accurate.

You are not alone.

Which is why the condemnation of the message needs to be loud and strong.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have never seen their statements presented as an assumption; always a confident assertion. 

And being "born with it" does not negate it being a condition belonging strictly to mortality. Many maladies are congenital. These will all be removed in the resurrection whether they occurred before or after birth. 

You don't really believe that same sex attraction is a malady, do you?  

We really simply do not know if a person's sexual attractions stay with them after this life, but it's unkind and thoughtless to infer that it's something that needs to "be removed" like some sort of disease or handicap.   

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are not alone.

Which is why the condemnation of the message needs to be loud and strong.

Why condemn something that is true?
Unless you have some revelation and scripture that this is "a gift from God to be embraced".

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have never seen their statements presented as an assumption; always a confident assertion. 

And being "born with it" does not negate it being a condition belonging strictly to mortality. Many maladies are congenital. These will all be removed in the resurrection whether they occurred before or after birth. 

Furthermore, if same-sex attraction is a physical condition, as you seem to presuppose here, all the more reason to assume it will be among the conditions pertaining to mortality that will be removed in the ressurection. 

Will opposite-sex attraction also be removed?

Share this post


Link to post

My guess is that he had Paul in mind when Paul said:

Galatians 3: 26-29

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

Edited by T-Shirt

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This is a very bold statement by Elder Bednar.    He differentiates clearly between behavior and being in a way I don't think we see very often.  He states the difference between our acts and choices, and who we are.
I'd love to post the video link but I can only find it on FB.  Check out Dialogue's FB page for the full actual video.

Questions and answers with Elder David a. Bednar, of the quorum of the twelve, 23 February 2016
How can they make homosexual members of the church to live and remain steadfast in the gospel?

Elder Bednar -  "There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction.  We are not defined by sexual behavior.  We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh.  There are many different types of challenges."

Elder Bednar claims that we are not defined by sexual attraction, but then says that we are defined by gender - sons and daughters of God. How can we be defined by gender, but not have sexual attraction be part of that definition?

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully, this video won't become the Mormon version of this.

Do not compare religious leaders to brutal dictators.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You don't really believe that same sex attraction is a malady, do you?  

Indeed I do.

Quote

We really simply do not know if a person's sexual attractions stay with them after this life, but it's unkind and thoughtless to infer that it's something that needs to "be removed" like some sort of disease or handicap.   

Since there can be no wholesome expression of it, no expression that conforms to the laws of God, in this life or the next, the unkind and thoughtless thing is to make someone who doesn't want it think he/she will be stuck with it for eternity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are not alone.

Which is why the condemnation of the message needs to be loud and strong.

Most of what comes from the great and spacious building is "loud and strong."

 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Having tried to be as charitable as possible to Elder Bednar, I am concerned that he appears to lump homosexuality in as a "challenge" in the flesh.

 

It is simply one of a host of behaviors denominated by Elder Bednar, and the Church he represents, as "sinful."

The message is that homosexuality is an orientation to be overcome, rather than a gift from God to be embraced.

I think this type of message is destructive and should be condemned.

Strange if true. That would definitely be a game changer. After all the Church has never suggested it was a challenge to be overcome in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed I do.

Since there can be no wholesome expression of it, no expression that conforms to the laws of God, in this life or the next, the unkind and thoughtless thing is to make someone who doesn't want it think he/she will be stuck with it for eternity.

 

So, you believe being gay is the same as suffering with a malady?

Malady definition:  a disease or ailment, illness, sickness, disease, infection.

It's unbelievable to me that you think this way and also I think it's very sad.  But, you have a right to believe whatever you feel is right.  I could not disagree more, though.

However, we simply do not know if a gay person will be "stuck with it for eternity". 

.

 
Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

This thread reminds me of this scripture:

Quote

19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.

 20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

We've seen such things before.  We are seeing them now.  We will see them again.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Elder Bednar claims that we are not defined by sexual attraction, but then says that we are defined by gender - sons and daughters of God. How can we be defined by gender, but not have sexual attraction be part of that definition?

I'm defined as an eater,  having a stomach, being a creature that eats.
However my attraction to half a pound of bacon or an extra helping of chocolate cake does not have to define me.  It is merely a craving from my stomach.

I also have a brain (despite all evidence to the contrary).  It thinks, it likes sensory input.  In fact it craves it.
A desire to read pornography and get a dopamine rush would be inappropriate.  My desire to watch slasher movies would be inappropriate.  My desire to read my scriptures or pra would be a better choice.  My brain's desires for  certain things does not define me.  No matter what I want to input into my mind, I am responsible for choosing correct input.

Why should my having specific sexual organs define me according to my desires to use them appropriately or inappropriately?.

Unless we consider sexual attraction to be as autonomic as a heartbeat our organs don't define our choices.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed I do.

Since there can be no wholesome expression of it, no expression that conforms to the laws of God, in this life or the next, the unkind and thoughtless thing is to make someone who doesn't want it think he/she will be stuck with it for eternity.

 

What about someone who does want it?  

Obviously, the dangers of Same-sex Marriage have been well warned by Church leaders.  But perhaps one of the biggest dangers that isn't often discussed is that people in a SSM might find true happiness and companionship.  If that happens, then how could they ever desire what the Church offers (i.e. eternal marriage to someone of the opposite sex, and specifically not the person they are currently married to)?

If two gay guys knocked on my door and said that they held the keys to true happiness, because I wasn't happy in my current marriage to my wife (they just knew it would be impossible), and that the key was that after I die, the God they believe in would make me have attractions to other men and that I could be put in eternal companionship with a man and enjoy an eternity of feeding each other grapes, and the first thing I would have to do is divorce my wife and resist any attractions I had to women for the rest of my earthly life on the promise that I would be changed after I die and really, really want to be with men in the afterlife,  I really don't think I would take them up on this deal, and I can't imagine any conditions (spiritual, social or otherwise) under which I would change my mind.  

And for someone to honestly suggest that the Church is offering people with homosexual tendencies anything that is remotely desirable or realistic is for them to admit that they either would accept the offer in the previous paragraph if the situation were reversed, or they have no idea how people with homosexual tendencies tend to experience the world.

That's the offer the Church has been making to people with homosexual attractions for the last 186 years.  But I'm guessing we'll never get back to the golden age of repressed homosexuality where we could expect gays to pretend they had heterosexual attractions or just keep quiet.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...