Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

 

That would be one instance of it, yes.

Quote

It's unbelievable to me that you think this way and also I think it's very sad.

As the Dread Pirate Roberts said, get used to disappointment.

 

 

Quote

But, you have a right to believe whatever you feel is right.  I could not disagree more, though.

And I could not disagree more strongly with your implied assertion that same-sex attraction is something to be celebrated, particularly if it leads to behavior that is a grave sin in the eyes of God.

So there we are. Making each other "very sad."

Quote

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

On the contrary, I know with certainty that such a person will not.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That would be one instance of it, yes.

As the Dread Pirate Roberts said, get used to disappointment.

 

 

And I could not disagree more strongly with your implied assertion that same-sex attraction is something to be celebrated, particularly if it leads to behavior that is a grave sin in the eyes of God.

So there we are. Making each other "very sad."

On the contrary, I know with certainty that such a person will not.

Has the church made any official statement saying that hom0sxuals will be cured in the next life and become hetero? I'm not aware of anything but I'm open to seeing an official position. As it is I don't see a coherent theology that includes hom0sxuals in the plan of salvation.

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

On the contrary, I know with certainty that such a person will not.

You can believe and hope and think that this is the most compatible with how you believe now.... 

But no, you absolutely cannot "know with certainty" that we will not have the same sexual feelings and attractions after we pass away.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You can believe and hope and think that this is the most compatible with how you believe now.... 

But no, you absolutely cannot "know with certainty" that we will not have the same sexual feelings and attractions after we pass away.

 

I repeat that I'm as certain as I am of anything that homosexuality will not exist beyond mortality. I thus reject and deny your assertion.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I repeat that I'm as certain as I am of anything that homosexuality will not exist beyond mortality. I thus reject and deny your assertion.

You simply cannot "know".  I agree you can be "as certain" as you are about "anything".  That can be true.  You won't really "know" what the next life is like until you experience it.  Belief and hope and faith are what you have now, not certain knowledge.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can believe and hope and think that this is the most compatible with how you believe now.... 

But no, you absolutely cannot "know with certainty" that we will not have the same sexual feelings and attractions after we pass away.

Kinda sorta rather awfully presumptuous for you to assert that someone else "absolutely cannot" know something vis-a-vis the hereafter, innit?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Has the church made any official statement saying that hom0sxuals will be cured in the next life and become hetero? I'm not aware of anything but I'm open to seeing an official position. As it is I don't see a coherent theology that includes hom0sxuals in the plan of salvation.

I think this is a question that you keep raising here on this board. I answer it with documentation. Then you forget that I answered it, and you raise it again, obliging me to repeat the response I have given before.

Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else; if so, I apologize in advance. But I ask that this time you remember that I gave a response and not raise the question again, failing to take cognizance of the response I have given.

Yes, on LDS Newsroom, an official webpage of the Church, there is a Q and A interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve and Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy. In the course of that interview, there is this excerpt:
 

Quote

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

Edited to add:

On the "Mormons and Gays" website, an official website of the Church, there is this:

Quote

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

(Emphasis mine)

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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)?

This is a great post (the part I didn't quote is great too).  I have a very close family member who is gay and married.  They are a great couple and have such a deep love for each other.  I'm sure they want to be together after this life and most likely are planning on it (just like many of us are wanting to be with our spouses after we die).

I believe we will be with those we love after we pass away (if they choose to be with us too).  I don't think God will force anyone to be with someone or without the one they love.

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment

For reference, here is Elder Bednar's response:

 How can homosexual members of the Church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?

 First I want to change the question.  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.

Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome?  And in the world in which we live, never develop deep character?  Because we’re able to open doors and have success just because of our physical experience?  And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.

That can be a challenge in the flesh.  Some people have physical limitations.  They may be born with a body that is not fully functional.  Or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.  Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we are blessed with moral agency.  Agency is the capacity to act, and not simply be acted upon.


(Holds up a bottle of water) This is a bottle of water.  It’s an object.  It has no capacity to act.  It is an object that can only be acted upon.  So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move.  You and I are not objects.  We are agents, blessed with agency because of the Atonement of Christ.  And with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon.  That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we experience in the flesh.

So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.  Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin.  There are many members of the Church who may have some manifestation of that attraction.  They honor their covenants.  They keep the commandments.  They are worthy, they can receive the blessings of the Temple, and they can serve in the Church.

It’s when we act on the inclination, or the attraction, that’s when it becomes a sin.

So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question the word “homosexual” was used to describe or label a member of the Church.  It’s an inaccurate label.  We are sons and daughters of God.  And we decide how we respond to the variety of challenges we face in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.

Now I want to speak very directly to you.  The world teaches that we must be “tolerant” and “accepting”.  There are some things we do not accept or tolerate.

We love all people, with whatever challenge any person faces.  The purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior’s Church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge.

So we do not discriminate and we are not “bigots”.  We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.

But what is the purpose of the Father’s plan?  We come to the Earth. We are blessed to receive a physical body.  Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.  And the family is central to the Father’s plan for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children.  That plan is halted in anything but a marriage between a man and a woman. 

Now, Joseph Smith didn’t create the plan.  Thomas Monson didn’t create the plan.  God the Eternal Father created the plan.  The Savior through his atonement makes the plan operational; effective in our lives.  And the Father has not changed His mind about how the plan should operate.

So please do not let the voices of the world confuse you or lead you in a different direction.  As you come to better understand the Father’s plan, then you will understand the purpose for marriage between a man and a woman.

I hope that’s responsive to the question.

A related point is that there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit.  You need to read and study over and over again the Family Proclamation.  It teaches that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose.  So, whenever you take those divinely designed differences – the capacities and talents of a female spirit and of a male spirit – and they are sealed together by the power of the priesthood – it creates a unity and a oneness, it creates a whole, that cannot be achieved any other way.

(Additional comments about his wife and marriage)

Link to comment
4 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."

 

 

 

I believe science has and will continue to prove his statement wrong.   This is not an uncommon thing for religion in general.  

I wonder if he would state there are no heterosexual members of the church?  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Kinda sorta rather awfully presumptuous for you to assert that someone else "absolutely cannot" know something vis-a-vis the hereafter, innit?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not at all.  It's not any more "awfully presumptuous" than you or others stating what you believe it will be like in the next life for those who are gay.  As others have stated, maybe they want to be with their partner or spouse from this life.

Certain knowledge is something we don't have regarding what life will be like for us in the hereafter.  Again, there's belief, hope and faith.....and reasoning out what we truly believe it will be like for us, but not certain knowledge.  I think that should be obvious.

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
Just now, Teancum said:

I believe science has and will continue to prove his statement wrong.   This is not an uncommon thing for religion in general.

I wonder if he would state there are no heterosexual members of the church?

What is the accepted scientific definition of "heterosexual" or "homosexual"?

Is it about attraction?  Is it about action?  Is it about behavior?

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For reference, here is Elder Bednar's response:

A related point is that there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit.  You need to read and study over and over again the Family Proclamation.  It teaches that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose.  So, whenever you take those divinely designed differences – the capacities and talents of a female spirit and of a male spirit – and they are sealed together by the power of the priesthood – it creates a unity and a oneness, it creates a whole, that cannot be achieved any other way.

 

This is the worst kind of self-referencing for a doctrinal proposition I have ever seen.

Elder Packer refers to the Proclamation as "scripture" in General Conference and that reference is taken out of the published report.

Now Elder Bednar is citing to the Proclamation to prove his assertion that "there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit"?

There is absolutely no scriptural support for this assertion.

And so Elder Bednar must rely on this unscriptural assertion in the Proclamation which the Church has gone out of its way to say is . . . NOT scripture.

It doesn't get any crazier than this.

Link to comment
1 hour 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 agree that this message is destructive to your anti-Mormon agenda, and the wicked will condemn it.

Nobody else will, of course.

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 "there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit"?

There is absolutely no scriptural support for this assertion.

Genesis 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

I Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

D&C 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting ...
...they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I agree that this message is destructive to your anti-Mormon agenda, and the wicked will condemn it.

Nobody else will, of course.

 

Oh, I think plenty of good people who hear this would condemn it (who know nothing about the Mormon church).  Condemn is a strong word as I'd say maybe his message is more confusing. This is an inflammatory topic right now for many (most) people, Mormon or not.  That's why I think Elder Bednar at least tried to change the question.  At least he did give an answer.

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

JLHPROF,

Would you say your familial relationships define you?

Does your status as husband or wife, son or daughter, mother or husband, brother or sister define you?

Does the relationship you share with your spouse give you meaning, identity, and purpose? 

Does the gender of your spouse make a difference in the type of romantic love, affection, and sexual attraction you are capable of feeling towards your spouse?

If you answered yes to any of the above, I would hope you can see that those of us who are gay (or lesbian) would also feel the same way.

The church teaches that one's relationship with one's spouse is fundamentally, foundationally, overarchingly important---even MORE important than ALL other self-identifiers-----but ONLY if your spouse's gender is different from your own. 

As such, I find sentiments such as Elder Bednar's comments to be entirely inconsistent.  It's vital for straight people to define themselves by entering into marital relationships based on and entirely shaped by their innate heterosexual orientation, but gay people shouldn't deign to define themselves based on their innate homosexual orientation--heck, he can't even bring himself to acknowledge that homosexual individuals exist within his church.  Straight LDS members are encouraged to define their lives by their opposite-sex marital relationships--but the message is that if you're attracted to individuals of the same-gender, it's just an urge that all about sex.  That is a horribly damaging message to gays and lesbians--teaching them to deny their own familial identities--and, in my view, demonstrates an unfortunate lack of understanding or insight held by the 15 men who's values reflect the ill-founded biases of previous generations bent on promoting cultural tribalism.

I agree that Bednar's comments contradict the church's website, www.mormonsandgays.com, which allegedly helps clarify the church's position on gays and lesbians, and which DOES acknowledge the unique challenges that LDS gay and lesbian members face.

At the end of the day, whatever label you use---"straight/bi/gay/lesbian," "heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual," "individual with OSA/SSA"--are all still labels, based on the same understanding--that to varying degrees, some people are attracted to members of their own gender, some are attracted to members of their same gender, and some are attracted to both genders.  IMO, it's absurd to make a statement like "there are no homosexual members of the church."  It seems deliberately obtuse and increases the perception that LDS leaders do  not fully comprehend many of their own members' life experiences with their own sexual orientations.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well..nice.  That being said..the church has been defined by its polygamy past for a long time.  Of course there isn't any polygamy in the church is there.  I think the statement is sad.  Does this mean that gay members are not sons and daughters of God? 

I have no idea what that reply means, it's meaningless. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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.  

 

 

The reputation point I gave was paltry by the mental applause that reverberated through me as I read this post. :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Kudos.  I am always humbled when someone's compassion reaches a depth that allows them to relate to the differences of others by successfully attempting to fully imagine themselves walking in others' divergent (but often congruent) paths.

Thank you for expressing the above so eloquently.  Probably one of my FAVORITE posts of all time here at FAIR/MDD. 

Well said. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...