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

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's what struck me as I listened to the response.  Other than the promise of being "changed" in the afterlife and the assumption that they will want to be eternally joined in a heterosexual marriage, what does the Church have to offer people with strong homosexual attractions?

I can see why people who grew up in the Church and were raised with the "Plan of Happiness" as the ideal (and only) option for eternal happiness might try to stay with the Church.  But without that background, what is the Church trying to offer?  I know it's always been this way, but it just seems to be coming more and more obvious, and honestly, it's a little sad.

Is it an official position that people will be changed in the next life to be hetero? If so, I'd love to see a reference.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's kinda weird that it came down to:

In the Church we define homosexuals, thusly.  And as such they will be excommunicated.

and then

In the Church there are no homosexuals.  People aren't defined by that stuff.

It's kind of sad to think people aren't allowed to define themselves in the Church.  But it's mixed messaging to define a group call them apostates, then say no one should be this group. 

There's no such thing as an apostate. People are not defined by their doctrinal viewpoints! 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it an official position that people will be changed in the next life to be hetero? If so, I'd love to see a reference.

 here was Scott's response to this:

 

[california boy]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, I think Elder Bendar's comment fails for one key reason: he is using a simplistic semantic argument in a way that borders on being disingenuous.

If someone asked me "Cinepro, are you a soccer player?"  and I responded "Well, I don't like labels because I don't want to be defined in only one dimension, so no, I'm not a 'soccer player', but I do play soccer twice a week", at the very least the questioner would be (justifiably) confused and at worse I would sound like a pretentious dork.

No one is saying that being a "homosexual" is the entire sum of a person's existence.  Obviously, there are homosexuals who also enjoy watching football (i.e. "football fans"), writing music (i.e. "musicians"), playing Settlers of Catan (i.e. "nerds"), riding bicycles through the mountains on the weekends (i.e. "cyclists") and so on. 

But to the degree that language is a construct and reflection of society that we all agree upon so we can communicate (and hopefully understand each other better), it's silly to pretend that someone who has strong and exclusive sexual feelings for members of the same gender isn't a "homosexual". 

So at its core, Elder Bednar is still teaching a philosophy about sexual attraction and orientation that is outmoded and rooted in discredited ideas of the past.  If that's the strategy the Church has chosen to employ, then so be it.  More power to them.

But they shouldn't be surprised when they try to gloss over their philosophy with a flimsy semantic argument and no one buys it.  It's 2016, and we all know what a "homosexual" is (just like we all know what a "heterosexual" is), and to pretend that we're being progressive and innovative by trying to evade what those words mean isn't progressive or innovative.  It's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of the Church's teachings about homosexuality.

 

Edit: But I will add that perhaps it is an improvement for the Church itself to move beyond totally defining homosexuals as "homosexuals" and recognizing that they have other attributes as well.  In that regard, it may be true progress, even if the response of most homosexuals is probably along the lines of "No kidding moron.  I know my entire being isn't described by the word 'homosexual', which simply describes my attraction to other men and Broadway musicals.  Thanks for noticing."  If someone thought they were sharing a theological epiphany by letting me know that me being heterosexual doesn't totally define who I am, I might be a little disappointed if it took them 186 years to figure it out, but I'd be glad that they finally did.

 

I don't experience this very often on this board. You are one of the few, but not the only one, who gets what it is like to be gay. Thank you. Maybe there will be others that will read your post and shift their understanding of what it is to be gay. Being gay doesn't define who we are. It only defines who we are attracted to. Who we want to spend the rest of our lives with. Who we share that unexplainable thread that binds our soul with another. In all other aspects of our lives we are like every other child of God. our wants, our dreams, our charity to others, our love of family, our kindness to others, our love of God are what we work towards perfecting. And that is what ultimately defines who we are. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

In all other aspects of our lives we are like every other child of God. our wants, our dreams, our charity to others, our love of family, our kindness to others, our love of God are what we work towards perfecting. And that is what ultimately defines who we are. 

The second half of Elder Bednar's answer ignores this important point.  He doesn't want people to define themselves by their attraction and yet he reduces the whole of the gospel to heterosexual marriage.

[ALarson]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 here was Scott's response to this:

 

So, is it church doctrine then?  Or do we just have statements and opinions regarding it from our leaders?  Just curious how others view it.

.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

So let's answer the original question posed to Elder Bednar:

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

The short version of Elder Bednar's answer (and the one supported by many people in this thread) seems to be:

If you are inclined towards homosexual behavior, you can choose to remain celibate and stay in the Church, or act out on those desires and separate yourself from the Church.  If you choose to marry someone of the same gender, then you will be excommunicated.

Nothing new there.  That has always been the Church's policy in one degree or another.

What has changed is that now people who have homosexual desires have more freedom to commit themselves to formal relationships with the opposite gender with a lower chance of facing societal persecution.

That being the case, it creates a new problem for the Church, in that there will be a growing group of people in society for which the Plan of Happiness(tm) just doesn't apply (in the traditional sense).  And their existence pokes a little hole in one of the foundational beliefs of the Church: namely, that everyone, everywhere needs to hear and accept the gospel in order to enjoy eternal happiness.

Because if people with homosexual tendencies discover they can have long lasting, deep happiness in a committed relationship with someone of the same gender, then what, exactly, does the LDS Church have to offer them?

First, they probably won't be interested in an eternity of heterosexual marriage (or the idea that God will drastically change their desires in order to make it happen).  So where does that put them in the eternities?  I have an employee who is married to another man.  We'll call them Chris and Randy.

Chris and Randy have been married for about two years.  From what I can tell, they're pretty dang happy to be together, and if I were to offer them the chance to go to the Celestial Kingdom where they would have their desires magically changed towards women, allowing them to have "eternal increase", I don't think they'd be interested.

But if I told them that according to Mormon doctrine, they'll end up in a glory of heaven populated by other gay people, and they'll have perfect resurrected bodies and they'll spend the rest of eternity together, I'm not sure they'd think that's a bad idea.  In fact, they'd probably think that's pretty cool.  And if I told them that they didn't have to do anything to get there (no Church, no tithing etc.), I doubt they'd complain.

So multiply this by all the other people out there who have strong homosexual desires and find happiness in companionships of the same gender, and things start to get really interesting.  Maybe Elder Bednar's question should have been:

Why would a homosexual LDS want to live and remain steadfast in the gospel? 

I'd like someone to answer that for me, because I think that's the question that will be asked more and more, and if Elder Bednar is any indication, the Church doesn't have a good answer.

 

Wow Cineplex. You are nailing it!!!

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, is it church doctrine then?  Or do we just have statements and opinions regarding it from our leaders?  Just curious how others view it.

.

You got me. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The second half of Elder Bednar's answer ignores this important point.  He doesn't want people to define themselves by their attraction and yet he reduces the whole of the gospel to heterosexual marriage.

You are absolutely right. Mormon doctrine is built on a narrowly defined definition of marriage. All else is built upon that principle. it is of such importance that it is impossible to fit all the other pieces together. You may be able to fit a piece here and there, but you will never be able to complete. the picture. For gays that piece is completely missing and there is no hope in finding it. For single members that piece is simply lost and they have the hope of finding it  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow Cineplex. You are nailing it!!!

Make a heaven out of anywhere we end up.  Take a delightful thought from Joseph Smith on this.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are absolutely right. Mormon doctrine is built on a narrowly defined definition of marriage. All else is built upon that principle. it is of such importance that it is impossible to fit all the other pieces together. You may be able to fit a piece here and there, but you will never be able to complete. the picture. For gays that piece is completely missing and there is no hope in finding it. For single members that piece is simply lost and they have the hope of finding it  

Exactly.  And I think that dilemma was at the heart of the question asked of Elder Bednar -- which he chose not to really answer.  It's something the Church is going to have to sincerely address to move forward.  Redirecting as Elder Bednar did is no longer acceptable.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, is it church doctrine then?  Or do we just have statements and opinions regarding it from our leaders?  Just curious how others view it.

.

 

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You got me.

 

Depends on if you are looking for explicit statements or simple logic.

IF homosexual feelings are a mortal weakness that can lead to sin (and I know many don't think they are) then when we are baptized by fire, or resurrected, the scriptures do teach that at some point the dross that is within us will be purified.

So it is clearly in scripture that even if we raise our bodies up as we lay them down, at some point there will be a purification process.
If the Church is correct that homosexual feelings (like other feelings) are the dross, they will be removed.  That is scriptural.

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The second half of Elder Bednar's answer ignores this important point.  He doesn't want people to define themselves by their attraction and yet he reduces the whole of the gospel to heterosexual marriage.

That may be because the entirety of Mormonism can be reduced to heterosexual marriage. 

 

[consiglieri]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, is it church doctrine then?  Or do we just have statements and opinions regarding it from our leaders?  Just curious how others view it.

.

I actually started a thread devoted to this subject a few weeks ago.

My answer is that this is absolutely not church doctrine--i.e., that our gender is an essential characteristic of our premortal, mortal and postmortal identity.

This was made up out of whole cloth in the Proclamation.

And now Elder Bednar cites to it in support of his teaching.

Elder Bednar is citing to an opinion in order to establish a doctrine.

Something is backwards here.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In the Church we define homosexuals, thusly.

No, homosexual behavior is defined.

While anyone can define himself in the Church, it is self-destructive to define oneself in the gospel or eternal framework by any one of his many behaviors, especially sinful behaviors.

Apostasy refers to members' behaviors, not their identity no matter how they might identify themselves.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I actually started a thread devoted to this subject a few weeks ago.

My answer is that this is absolutely not church doctrine--i.e., that our gender is an essential characteristic of our premortal, mortal and postmortal identity.

This was made up out of whole cloth in the Proclamation.

And now Elder Bednar cites to it in support of his teaching.

Elder Bednar is citing to an opinion in order to establish a doctrine.

Something is backwards here.

Yep... it's become circular.  Apostles write a proclamation and make a declaration about gender.  Then in the subsequent 20 years they and the new apostles refer back to that proclamation to support their statements.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... it's become circular.  Apostles write a proclamation and make a declaration about gender.  Then in the subsequent 20 years they and the new apostles refer back to that proclamation to support their statements.

Well, all doctrine is opinion, whether the source is ancient scripture, modern scripture, or very modern proclamations. 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... it's become circular.  Apostles write a proclamation and make a declaration about gender.  Then in the subsequent 20 years they and the new apostles refer back to that proclamation to support their statements.

And in between, they are busy quoting each other in General Conference.

And thus all truth may be circumscribed into one great whole.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends on if you are looking for explicit statements or simple logic.

IF homosexual feelings are a mortal weakness that can lead to sin (and I know many don't think they are) then when we are baptized by fire, or resurrected, the scriptures do teach that at some point the dross that is within us will be purified.

So it is clearly in scripture that even if we raise our bodies up as we lay them down, at some point there will be a purification process.
If the Church is correct that homosexual feelings (like other feelings) are the dross, they will be removed.  That is scriptural.

Well, there are a lot of "ifs" in your post and that's why there are a lot of differing opinions and feelings regarding this.

And, what "Simple logic" is for you, is not what "simple logic" is for others.

For someone who is in a very loving and rewarding SSM, "simple logic" is that they will continue loving them after this life and they will be able to spend eternity with them.  They want to be with their spouse and family as much as you want and hope to be with yours in the next life.

.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

While anyone can define himself in the Church, it is self-destructive to define oneself in the gospel or eternal framework by any one of his many behaviors, especially sinful behaviors.

 

I thought it was common knowledge the Church is composed exclusively of sinners.

What was it President Uchtdorf said?

Something about, "Don't hate me because I sin differently than you."

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I actually started a thread devoted to this subject a few weeks ago.

In which your position was shown to be completely wrong!

The inhabitants of the physical and spiritual worlds that He created are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:24). They appear physically as they appear in the spirit (Moses 3:5; Ether 3:16). They were thus begotten in the pre-existence. And then begotten in paradise (Moses 6:9), begotten after the fall (as we can plainly see), begotten in spiritual rebirth (Alma 18;41 and 19:13), begotten sons and daughters in the post-mortal spirit world (D&C 138:38-47) and in the resurrection (Alma 11:44). As exalted beings, they beget a continuation of the seeds forever (D&C 132:19).

[smac97]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

 

I'm sure some same-sex couples may "want to be" together in the eternities.  But such a concept is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.  Not as a matter of doctrine.  Not as a matter of hope.  

Quote

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..

"Certain?"  Well, okay.  But we seem to have quite a bit of guidance from past and present prophets and apostles.  Moreover, I think individuals can - for themselves - make reasonable extrapolations about the hereafter.  Such extrapolating would take into account doctrines such as A) eternal marriage (which is indisputably exclusively heterosexual in LDS doctrine), B) eternal increase (which, per D&C 131:1-4, is reserved exclusively for sealed persons, and since there are no male/male or female/female marriage sealings, it is therefore indisputably exclusively available to male/female partnerships), and C) the Law of Chastity (which has always, always been taught as prohibiting same-sex behavior, while simultaneously endorsing and celebrating heterosexual behavior within marriage).

The only marital relationships that endure in the eternities are the ones that sanctified by the sealing ordinance and by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  Barring a stunning turnabout in and repudiation/negation/suspension of LDS doctrine, there is no chance of a same-sex marriage enduring in the eternities.  None.  Zip.  Zero.  

I suppose there is some sort of theoretical hope that, per the 9th Article of Faith, the Lord may reverse everything His prophets and apostles have taught about the Law of Chastity relating to same-sex behavior, that He may reverse everything His presiding high priests and apostles have been doing for years to protect marriage from being radically re-defined to include same-sex couples, that He will instruct His presiding high priest and apostles to stop teaching against same-sex marriage now that it is a reality, and that He will instead instruct His Church to embrace same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage, and that He will instruct His presiding high priest and apostles to implement sealing ordinances for same-sex couples.

Yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible that these things will happen.  But I think that possibility is extraordinarily small.  Negligible.  Not worth serious discussion or consideration.

Here's an excerpt from this Church essay about marriage:

Quote

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints.

Life's greatest joys are found in the family. Strong family relationships require effort, but such effort brings great happiness in this life and throughout eternity. In our Heavenly Father's plan of happiness, a man and a woman can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity. Those who are sealed in the temple have the assurance that their relationship will continue forever if they are true to their covenants. They know that nothing, not even death, can permanently separate them.

The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1-4).

After receiving the sealing ordinance and making sacred covenants in the temple, a couple must continue in faithfulness in order to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and exaltation. The Lord said:

“If a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; … and if [they] abide in my covenant, … it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world” (D&C 132:19).

Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22).

At the end of the day, there is not a cognizable basis for the Saints to suggest that the Church's teachings about eternal marriage are going to change in such a way as to accommodate the concept of same-sex relationships in the eternities.  Let me emphasize here that I am a big, big fan of the 9th Article of Faith.  I truly believe that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  But c'mon.  I don't think we as Latter-day Saints can excuse or ignore conduct that we are unequivocally being taught is sinful now by pointing to some future conjectural departure from "all that God has revealed" and "all that He does now reveal" regarding same-sex behavior.  To do so is, in my mind, to wrest the scriptures and the counsel from the Brethren so as to potentially run afoul of Alma 13:20 ("Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.").

I think we need to listen to and prayerfully heed the counsel from the Brethren on this issue.  I think we need to listen to them more than we listen to the World.  I think 1 Nephi 16:1-5 is applicable here:

Quote

 1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

 2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

 3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

 4 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did exhort my brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord.

 5 And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord; insomuch that I had joy and great hopes of them, that they would walk in the paths of righteousness.

And D&C 121:34-38:

Quote

 34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

And D&C 22:4:

Quote

Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

And Jacob 4:10:

Quote

 10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.

And D&C 1:38:

Quote

 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2016 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, there are a lot of "ifs" in your post and that's why there are a lot of differing opinions and feelings regarding this.

And, what "Simple logic" is for you, is not what "simple logic" is for others.

For someone who is in a very loving and rewarding SSM, "simple logic" is that they will continue loving them after this life and they will be able to spend eternity with them.  They want to be with their spouse and family as much as you want and hope to be with yours in the next life.

.

That's not simple logic, more wishful thinking.  There has never been a teaching that logically leads to that conclusion.

You and Stemelbow asked for teachings concerning homosexuality being removed in the next life.
I responded that there may be no teachings explicit to homosexuality, but there are many teachings that impurities, spiritual dross, and other mortal weaknesses will be removed.
The only IF I employed is to state IF homosexuality falls into that category.
Based on the teaching of the Church and gospel, it does.  Therefore, although not explicitly named, it is implicitly logical that homosexuality would not continue into the eternities along with other negative characteristics once purification is complete.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm sure some same-sex couples may "want to be" together in the eternities.  But such a concept is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.  Not as a matter of doctrine.  Not as a matter of hope.  

I would imagine that most couples in a SSM want to continue being with the one they love.  I certainly believe that God will not force them to stay apart.  

And, as far any of this being "a matter of doctrine", this has been discussed (and is being discussed on this thread).

I really appreciate your entire post above and enjoyed reading through it.  We just disagree on our conclusions.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I responded that there may be no teachings explicit to homosexuality, but there are many teachings that impurities, spiritual dross, and other mortal weaknesses will be removed.
The only IF I employed is to state IF homosexuality falls into that category.
Based on the teaching of the Church and gospel, it does.  Therefore, although not explicitly named, it is implicitly logical that homosexuality would not continue into the eternities along with other negative characteristics once purification is complete.

Well, we all suffer with or have impurities, spiritual dross or mortal weaknesses.  I don't think that being gay is included in those.

I believe God will be fair and loving.  There will be no forcing of people to be married (polygamy for example) and there will be no forcing to keep those who love each other apart.  I also believe gay spouses will be together if they want to be with the one they love after this life.  I know you believe otherwise and I respect that.

.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ALarson