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

[JLHPROF]

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."

 

 

 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes 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."

 

 

 

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? 

[Calm]

I would have felt better about the comment, which I agree with if he is saying what I think he is saying, if he also said "there are no heterosexual members of the Church" as well.  Without that, it is confusing given the variation on how homosexuality is currently discussed in the Church.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would have felt better about the comment, which I agree with if he is saying what I think he is saying, if he also said "there are no heterosexual members of the Church" as well.  Without that, it is confusing given the variation on how homosexuality is currently discussed in the Church.

I agree.  As he states it, it will be easy for members to take it out of context (using just the one sentence, "There are no homosexual members of the church.")  

 

[thesometimesaint]

While I admire and support Elder Bednar in his role as an Apostle he jumped the shark on this one.

[TheSkepticChristian]

20 minutes 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."

Does that mean there are also no Heterosexual members of the church? 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Does that mean there are also no Heterosexual members of the church?

I would think, yes.

After listening to the entire video he appears to be saying:

• Sexual actions are 100% a choice.
• Sexual attraction is not a sin, only acting on inappropriate sexual attraction is sinful, just like acting on any other challenge we are born with to overcome.
• We are creatures of agency, able to act.  Not objects without the ability to act for ourselves or to be acted upon by our feelings.

Much as I don't like to start yet ANOTHER SSM thread, this statement was so blunt I felt it deserved some discussion.
I think Elder Bednar is more of an old fashioned orthodox/traditionalist Mormon than I gave him credit for.  I am still only beginning to see the differences between the Apostles - the more progressive, the more orthodox.  It continues to fascinate me that there really are differences in approach between them.

[consiglieri]

This strikes me as an attempt on Elder Bednar's part to differentiate membership from sexual orientation.

Sort of like how some people used to say there are no "African-Americans," only Americans.

In that light, I do not find his comments objectionable.

[busybee]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This strikes me as an attempt on Elder Bednar's part to differentiate membership from sexual orientation.

Sort of like how some people used to say there are no "African-Americans," only Americans.

In that light, I do not find his comments objectionable.

Hold on to your hat!!! I would give you a rep point for this!!

Why, oh why are people determined to define themselves solely by their sexuality?? It boggles the mind. All members of the church have challenges that they have to deal with. You don't hear people going around saying I am depression, I am .....( insert whatever other challenge you can think of). Why choose to define yourself as a very small part of what makes you who you are?

[Gray]

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?

[ALarson]

Did he also say that good looking people have an easier time in life (don't have to work as hard) as an example of challenges or trials of the flesh?

(I haven't watched the video, but saw this posted on another forum....I'll try to listen later today).

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

3 minutes 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?

If I am understanding Elder Bednar correctly, he should have no objection to also saying that there are no heterosexual members of the church.

If Elder Bednar is not willing to say this, I am probably misunderstanding him.

The problem is finding out whether Elder Bednar is willing to say that.

Apostles can be deucedly difficult to get hold of to ask a simple follow-up.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If I am understanding Elder Bednar correctly, he should have no objection to also saying that there are no heterosexual members of the church.

If Elder Bednar is not willing to say this, I am probably misunderstanding him.

The problem is finding out whether Elder Bednar is willing to say that.

Apostles can be deucedly difficult to get hold of to ask a simple follow-up.

Difficulty schmifficulty... I challenge you to get hold of him and ask him!

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I think Elder Bednar is more of an old fashioned orthodox/traditionalist Mormon than I gave him credit for.  

Or he understands that "orientation" is a relatively recent cultural concept, not a biological one.

[Ahab]

Technically speaking all of us are homosexual in the sense of being only one sex as a sexual being.

And regardless of which sex we are we have some of each sex within us, whether we measure that by X and Y chromosomes or by how masculine or feminine each of us are.

I think I get his point though, just a little disappointed that he wasn't as technically correct as he could have been.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or he understands that "orientation" is a relatively recent cultural concept, not a biological one.

I think he understands that, though he limits his comment to attraction and behavior (regardless of source or cause, I think).

I think that even gender, “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” does not define us. “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.” The bold part defines us.

And we “all are alike unto God,” and invited “to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him.” (2 Nephi 26:33.

[canard78]

1 hour 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."

 

 

 

Does that mean there are no young and old members of the church or female and male members of the church because we are also not defined by our age or gender? Are there no British saints or African saints because we are not defined by nationality? Perhaps there are no new members or less-active members because we are not defined by recency of baptism or frequency of attendance. Are there also no temple recommend holding members or full-tithe paying members because we are not defined by our observation of commandments. 

What he said was either unnecessarily antagonistic in diminishing the very real and specifically challenging experiences of being LDS and gay... or it was an utterly redundant if he feels every classifier or membership prefix is not a defining characteristic. 

Why couldn't he just answer the question based on the intent of the question?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Does that mean there are no young and old members of the church or female and male members of the church because we are also not defined by our age or gender? Are there no British saints or African saints because we are not defined by nationality? Perhaps there are no new members or less-active members because we are not defined by recency of baptism or frequency of attendance. Are there also no temple recommend holding members or full-tithe paying members because we are not defined by our observation of commandments.

What he said was either unnecessarily antagonistic in diminishing the very real and specifically challenging experiences of being LDS and gay... or it was an utterly redundant if he feels every classifier or membership prefix is not a defining characteristic.

Why couldn't he just answer the question based on the intent of the question?

Perhaps he really was saying that actions of homosexuality are a choice and homosexual attractions are a challenge to be overcome (like a temper, jealousy, anxiety, lust, gluttony etc).
And that this is very unlike gender, nationality, hair color etc.

An unpopular opinion, but one I've also expressed and agree with.
Do we consider our personal challenges and weaknesses (such as all inappropriate attractions and feelings we may have) to be a unchanging part of us as much as ethnicity or gender?  Or do we consider them to be an alterable personality trait?
How does God view our feelings?

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Does that mean there are no young and old members of the church or female and male members of the church because we are also not defined by our age or gender? Are there no British saints or African saints because we are not defined by nationality? Perhaps there are no new members or less-active members because we are not defined by recency of baptism or frequency of attendance. Are there also no temple recommend holding members or full-tithe paying members because we are not defined by our observation of commandments. 

What he said was either unnecessarily antagonistic in diminishing the very real and specifically challenging experiences of being LDS and gay... or it was an utterly redundant if he feels every classifier or membership prefix is not a defining characteristic. 

Why couldn't he just answer the question based on the intent of the question?

I wonder if Elder Bednar would object to a designation such as this: an individual (or a member of the Church) who has same-sex attraction. That would seem to fit better with his paradigm that "we all have different challenges in the flesh." If I'm understanding him correctly (and it's certainly possible that I am not), what he objects to is the lumping of all people into one category with which they don't necessarily identify.

Before I was married, I was annoyed at the idea of being considered "a single" as though the word were a noun and not an adjective. Rather, I preferred to be regarded as a member of the Church who was single. My reasoning was that single-adult members of the Church were (and are) a broad and diverse body of people with varying characteristics, challenges, circumstances, outlooks, etc., and that it was less than productive to try to paint them all with a broad brush.

That's the best analog I can come up with at the moment.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  As he states it, it will be easy for members to take it out of context (using just the one sentence, "There are no homosexual members of the church.")  

 

In context this statement is still a problem. There are many questions about how gays fit into the plan of salvation. He was asked about this but then didn't answer the question. But he did make assumptions about eternal procreation in the same way it is done here in mortality. Can he provide a revelation or reference for that information for how the creation/organization of spirits comes about? The crux of the church argument against SSM is that they clearly can't create spirit children. I'd like to know what the basis for that position is.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In context this statement is still a problem. There are many questions about how gays fit into the plan of salvation. He was asked about this but then didn't answer the question. But he did make assumptions about eternal procreation in the same way it is done here in mortality. Can he provide a revelation or reference for that information for how the creation/organization of spirits comes about? The crux of the church argument against SSM is that they clearly can't create spirit children. I'd like to know what the basis for that position is.

Those Church leaders I have heard address the question at all have uniformly affirmed that same-sex attraction is not a condition that will persist past mortality.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In context this statement is still a problem. There are many questions about how gays fit into the plan of salvation. He was asked about this but then didn't answer the question. But he did make assumptions about eternal procreation in the same way it is done here in mortality. Can he provide a revelation or reference for that information for how the creation/organization of spirits comes about? The crux of the church argument against SSM is that they clearly can't create spirit children. I'd like to know what the basis for that position is.

I would say the crux is more that it goes against the eternal order of family (of which creating spirit children is only one part).
Equally hard to reference except through precedent.  And the precedents are usually dismissed out of hand with the "we don't know for sure" argument.

But all boils back down to your statement "There are many questions about how gays fit into the plan of salvation" which identifies homosexuals as a separate biological type of person instead of homosexuality as a personality trait.
Elder Bednar seems to be rejecting the notion that homosexuals are a unique class of person, and instead that they have a personality trait to overcome.

Edited February 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In context this statement is still a problem. There are many questions about how gays fit into the plan of salvation. He was asked about this but then didn't answer the question

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).

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[canard78]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if Elder Bednar would object to a designation such as this: an individual (or a member of the Church) who has same-sex attraction. That would seem to fit better with his paradigm that "we all have different challenges in the flesh." If I'm understanding him correctly (and it's certainly possible that I am not), what he objects to is the lumping of all people into one category with which they don't necessarily identify.

Before I was married, I was annoyed at the idea of being considered "a single" as though the word were a noun and not an adjective. Rather I preferred to be regarded as a member of the Church who was single. My reasoning was that single-adult members of the Church were (and are) a broad and diverse body of people with varying characteristics, challenges, circumstances, outlooks, etc., and that it was less than productive to try to paint them all with a broad brush.

That's the best analog I can come up with at the moment.

 

I'm actively trying these days to avoid being an "offender for a word" participant in discussions about current (and past) Mormon leaders, so am trying to see the intent and underlying message behind his answer and to consider the situation in which he gave it. Elder Bednar was in, what appears to be, a relatively informal fireside setting somewhere in latin america (??).

While informal, he appears to have accepted this question in advance and to have prepared a response to this question... or at least given it some thought before replying. 

I agree with you that sweeping generalisations or labeling of large groups of people isn't helpful. It would be helpful if he were at least a bit more consistent in this approach though. But if he was going to reframe the question, as he did, mightn't it have been more reasonable to state it in the way that you have. "Our challenges/desires do not define us. Being a member of the church who has same-sex attraction has specific challenges..." etc.

He compares homosexuality to other "challenges in the flesh," such as being excessively attractive and not having to work hard to open doors in life or having a physical body that is not fully functioning. He describes homosexuality as "an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex." He then goes on to talk about the atonement and agency. We're agents, not objects with the ability to choose who we respond to the various challenges of the flesh.

I appreciated the fact that he said, unequivocally, that being "simply attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin." Many have a manifestation of that attraction who still keep their covenants and are worthy of the temple. He says "it's when we act on the attraction or inclination that it becomes a sin."

He said: the reason he answered the question this way was that to label a member of the church as a homosexual is an inaccurate label as we determine how we respond to various challenges of life through agency.

He goes on to say the world teaches us to be tolerant and accepting but that there are some things the church does not tolerate. He said the purpose of the church is to assist people in various challenges. "We do not discriminate and we are not bigots. We extend Christlike love to all sons and daughters of God." He then goes on to emphasise the importance of marriage between man and woman.

So in the end... he answers the question. I just question the sense in creating a potentially inflammatory soundbite. I'm sure that was not his intention, but that's the outcome. Sometimes, when discussing highly sensitive subjects such as sexuality, perhaps a little tact would be helpful.

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those Church leaders I have heard address the question at all have uniformly affirmed that same-sex attraction is not a condition that will persist past mortality.

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.