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

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Mandatory discipline vs optional discipline. I think that's a pretty big difference.

Then again, maybe that crossword puzzle is racier than it appears at first glance...

Well, the reason one is mandatory is because they just legalized their sin. The second is optional because it might be with a penitent who slipped up and is trying to repent. If the relationship is legalized you are probably not penitent. If you are penitent you will delegalize the relationship.

It would be like if bicycling was a sin (I did not go with real sin because it tends to offend with comparisons). If you get caught up with some friends and go cycling once then it may be a one-off and you may just need to counsel with your bishop. If you belong to a cycling club and refuse to quit you are clearly choosing to continually live the evil sin of bicycling. It does not matter whether the cycling club insists on safe biking with helmets while the time you went with your friends you were really naughty and did not wear a helmet. While it is optional in the first case I would expect that even if you never joined the club but you went cycling every week that, while still technically optional, you will have the discipline council formed and be dealt with in pretty much the same way as if you joined the club.

Edit: Oh, and there is no crossword puzzle on that page. They are clearly looking through the personal ads to open up their relationship. Really, those guys need to discover Craigslist....Using the newspaper still? Really?

Edited March 2, 2016 by The Nehor

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

Elder Bednar first said there are no homosexuals in the church.

He then went on to say that there may be people in the church who are attracted to people of the same sex, but there are no homosexuals in the church.

He never varied from this.

 

Let's not forget the initial question was how can we make homosexuals feel more welcome in the church.

Elder Bednar refuses to answer that question, because according to him, there are no homosexuals in the church.

The take-away from his 11+ minute non-answer is that we don't have to make homosexuals feel more welcome in the church . . . because there are no homosexuals in the church.

I know Elder Bednar is talking off the cuff here, so I want to cut him some slack.

But really, I think we are entitled to expect more from an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen and Amen.

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Amen and Amen.

Two amens are better than three rep points. 

 

[ALarson]

 We have discussed this topic in our last 3 Bishopric meetings (we have at least one SSM couple in our ward, not at all active, but also not anti or vocal).  Everyone (including my Bishop) in the meeting is very upset about this new policy and cannot understand why the leaders are doing this right now (when it appeared they were making great strides towards better feelings with gays, the Mormons and Gays website and so on).  The Bishop is not planning on looking this couple up or instigating any church discipline and really hopes that he does not receive any strict instructions to start doing this.

So, those of us expressing this viewpoint and feelings here are not alone....not at all.  I think there are many who are suffering is silence too and are afraid to voice how they really feel.

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Two amens are better than three rep points. 

 

And answering a CFR is better than (how many?) dodges!

Second CFR on the quoted item above: "Elder Bednar first said there are no homosexuals in the church. "

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

CFR.

Second CFR on the quoted item above: "Elder Bednar first said there are no homosexuals in the church. "

CFR that Elder Bednar said there were no homosexuals in the Church?  Or that he said it first?

Because he said it in the OP video.  Whether he was the first to say it seems irrelevant.

Edited March 2, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 We have discussed this topic in our last 3 Bishopric meetings (we have at least one SSM couple in our ward, not at all active, but also not anti or vocal).  Everyone (including my Bishop) in the meeting is very upset about this new policy and cannot understand why the leaders are doing this right now (when it appeared they were making great strides towards better feelings with gays, the Mormons and Gays website and so on).  The Bishop is not planning on looking this couple up or instigating any church discipline and really hopes that he does not receive any strict instructions to start doing this.

So, those of us expressing this viewpoint and feelings here are not alone....not at all.  I think there are many who are suffering is silence too and are afraid to voice how they really feel.

.

If by "making great strides," you were harboring the notion that the Church was on its way toward acceptance of homosexual behavior within a Latter-day Saint paradigm, you were living in a fantasy world. And sorry to say it, if your bishop was harboring that notion, he is residing in the same world.

And by the way, your acclaim for the "Mormons and Gays" website appears to be selective. Recall that I quoted from that website to support my contention that it is the Church's position there will be no homosexuality in the hereafter.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And answering a CFR is better than (how many?) dodges!

Second CFR on the quoted item above: "Elder Bednar first said there are no homosexuals in the church. "

Why does the phrase "straining at gnats and swallowing a camel" come to mind?

[canard78]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that the quote, in its context, reflects doctrine.

It is not just Elder Wickman's opinion. Elder Oaks gives his implied assent to it, when he adds a thought. His thought in no way moderates, minimizes or compromises what Elder Wickman just said. On the contrary, it augments it.

And what these two leaders say here is consistent with everything I have ever heard any Church leader say on the topic. With unity, uniformity and unanimity, they all, to a man, say that homosexual behavior is not something that is approved of God or that belongs to the eternities or that it ever will be.

This statement is in a Q and A article on LDS Newsroom, which is the Church's official venue for publishing its official views to news media or the outside pubic in general.

Furthermore, we have the statement I quoted from the "Mormons and Gays" website, consistent with what Elders Oaks and Wickman said. "Mormons and Gays" is the go-to resource for ascertaining the Church's position on the gay issue.

Finally, the idea that same-sex attraction would exist beyond mortality is utterly alien to any teaching I have ever heard in the Church about the plan of salvation, the eternity of the family unit, the sealing together of families across the generations, etc. It simply doesn't belong in the doctrinal structure. It is a square peg destined never to fit into a round hole.

Smac said it well in a post earlier in this thread after he had cited some scriptures.

I would agree with you that logically speaking, if Mormonsim has the truth, then homosexuality can't be expected to be something that is a celestial/eternal attraction.  

You've caught me flat-footed on that. I don't know what you mean.

Sorry, typo. It should have been "carnal for carnal." Alma 41:13 talks about restoring good for good and carnal for carnal. There's also the scripture about "that same spirit" which you die with. 

Having done a bit of research on LDS.org it now appears to have been a "local doctrine" as I can't find any leadership quotes supporting the idea. 

The principle I remember being taught in youth was that spirit prison was purgatory, in part, because carnal desires or weaknesses would remain, but could not be acted on. For example a smoker would still have the desire to light up a fag in the next life but would (obviously) not be able to have a cigarette. Under that principle the homosexual attraction would remain but the ability to act would obviously not be possible. 

Like I said, until this morning, I've grown up thinking this is a minor Mormon doctrine but, having investigated it, it seems not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

Sorry, typo. It should have been "carnal for carnal." Alma 41:13 talks about restoring good for good and carnal for carnal. There's also the scripture about "that same spirit" which you die with. 

Having done a bit of research on LDS.org it now appears to have been a "local doctrine" as I can't find any leadership quotes supporting the idea. 

The principle I remember being taught in youth was that spirit prison was purgatory, in part, because carnal desires or weaknesses would remain, but could not be acted on. For example a smoker would still have the desire to light up a fag in the next life but would (obviously) not be able to have a cigarette. Under that principle the homosexual attraction would remain but the ability to act would obviously not be possible. 

Like I said, until this morning, I've grown up thinking this is a minor Mormon doctrine but, having investigated it, it seems not. 

Like you, I heard this in my youth, but have since determined that the idea seems doctrinally incoherent. Whatever Alma 41:13 means, I don't think that is a correct interpretation.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

 You act as if the opinion of some straight philosophers or historian or whatever their title matters.

Interesting. Why would you falsely assume that serious scholars of the history of sexuality are all 'straight'?

Quote

Give me one good reason why it should matter.  

I guess I mistakenly thought we were supposed to be interested in 'truth over dogma'.

[maxrep12]

On 2/29/2016 at 5:06 PM, ALarson said:

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". 

.

 

Don't sweat Scott. He predicted he would be dead before same sex marriage came to Utah, and yet he is still here. Still here and still all up in arms about it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, maxrep12 said:

Don't sweat Scott. He predicted he would be dead before same sex marriage came to Utah, and yet he is still here. Still here and still all up in arms about it. 

I readily admit I seriously underestimated the despotic nature of the federal judiciary or the strength of the gay-rights juggernaut.

I won't make that mistake again.

American politics and the doctrinal realities of the Church of Jesus Christ are separate spheres, however, and foolish expectations about the Church ever caving in on the matter of homosexual behavior being unacceptable are doomed to failure.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, canard78 said:

There's also the scripture about "that same spirit" which you die with.

That would be Alma 34:34.

Quote

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Nevertheless, it has been clearly taught in the scriptures and by modern prophets that eventually every soul who is not cast off forever (perdition) will be brought to the point of repentance and then redemption, though for many it will occur only after they have been exposed to the unmitigated consequences of their choices:

• 'The time will come when "every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God", that Jesus is the Christ, and all who are worthy of a place in any of the kingdoms of glory will have to learn to be obedient to the divine laws by which they will be governed. All who refuse will have to go with the devil and his angels into perdition'. (link)
• 'All who have been filthy and who would not receive the truth and have not had the testimony of Jesus Christ, must suffer the torments of the damned until they are purged from their iniquity, for the blood of Jesus Christ will not cleanse them from their sins without their own individual suffering.Nevertheless they shall come out of the prison eventually. These are the rest of the dead, spoken of by John, who do not live during the millennial reign, but afterwards; and these are assigned to a kingdom known as the telestial kingdom'. (link)
• 'Even to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance; and when sentence has been served, commuted perhaps by repentance and its attendant works, the prison doors shall open and the penitent captive be afforded opportunity to comply with the law, which he aforetime violated'. (link)
• 'Nevertheless, even these are heirs of salvation, but before they are redeemed and enter into their kingdom, they must repent of their sins, and receive the gospel, and bow the knee, and acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world'. (link)

I think this is extremely good news -- and indeed an integral part of the 'good news' emanating from the whole Plan of Salvation -- but it may be a bit disappointing to those who are counting on God to have prepared a place for them wherein they can continue to live happily in their sins and rebellion.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Life long celibacy (devoid of any sexual or deep emotional connection with any other person) or mixed-orientation marriages (if you can manage it) are the only options for a gay person in order to remain on good terms with the Church.  That is a fact.  Let's not sugarcoat it.  It's also different and more difficult than what a heterosexual person is asked and expected to do.  Yes, we all have different challenges, but the challenges of being a gay member of the Church are unique and different.  Can we at least all acknowledge that?  To not be able to acknowledge this feels deeply invalidating to a gay person.     

And yes, the Church always considered acting on homosexual inclinations a sin, but before November 5, 2015, there was at least some hope that a gay person could come to church and not have church discipline.  There was the possibility that we could safely identify as gay and be embraced by our wards, depending on who our bishop was and where we lived.  There was a hope that we could share our stories and be valued as equals with the rest of our ward members.  There was hope that we wouldn't be forced into reparative therapy or counseling.  Now that hope is gone for so many of us.  

And all the straight, conservative leaning members of the Church are ignorant or indifferent about all of this.      

What I wish was different about the church is that it accepted the fact that everyone is a sinner.  Everyone falls short of Christ.  But the purpose of the church is to provide support for all to come to Christ, even those that sin.  Some are unable to overcome the addiction to alcohol.  Or the sin of immorality.  Or the sin of pornography.  Or ANY OTHER SIN.  What better environment is there for them to come to Christ than His church.  

Perhaps that sinner never overcomes that sin.  It doesn't matter.  The church still welcomes them even when they are unable to overcome their sins.  Does this make any sense?  A church that encourages all sinners to come unto Christ???  No exclusion.  No litmus test of who can come to Christ in fellowship of the church.  No labeling some as apostates.  No labeling some as being too unworthy to be a part of the church.  All feeling safe.  All feeling the love of the gospel.  The love of Christ.  All come.  Even those who have no hope of overcoming their sins in this life.  All doing what they are capable of doing.  Most of us will not be perfect when we leave this life.  What a different church that would be.  It feels more like the gospel Christ taught.  It feels more like what Christ talked about in Matthew 25.  

So what if a gay couple is married.  Is the church not big enough to allow sinners to be a part of the church?  Perhaps they will never overcome their love for each other.  Are there not other sins that can be worked on?  Does being in a gay marriage define EVERYTHING about them?  I think this is the safety that Sky is asking for.  Is that really too much to ask for the Church of Jesus Christ??  Re read Matthew 25 and pray before you answer that question.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That would be Alma 34:34.

Nevertheless, it has been clearly taught in the scriptures and by modern prophets that eventually every soul who is not cast off forever (perdition) will be brought to the point of repentance and then redemption, though for many it will occur only after they have been exposed to the unmitigated consequences of their choices:

• 'The time will come when "every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God", that Jesus is the Christ, and all who are worthy of a place in any of the kingdoms of glory will have to learn to be obedient to the divine laws by which they will be governed. All who refuse will have to go with the devil and his angels into perdition'. (link)
• 'All who have been filthy and who would not receive the truth and have not had the testimony of Jesus Christ, must suffer the torments of the damned until they are purged from their iniquity, for the blood of Jesus Christ will not cleanse them from their sins without their own individual suffering.Nevertheless they shall come out of the prison eventually. These are the rest of the dead, spoken of by John, who do not live during the millennial reign, but afterwards; and these are assigned to a kingdom known as the telestial kingdom'. (link)
• 'Even to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance; and when sentence has been served, commuted perhaps by repentance and its attendant works, the prison doors shall open and the penitent captive be afforded opportunity to comply with the law, which he aforetime violated'. (link)
• 'Nevertheless, even these are heirs of salvation, but before they are redeemed and enter into their kingdom, they must repent of their sins, and receive the gospel, and bow the knee, and acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world'. (link)

I think this is extremely good news -- and indeed an integral part of the 'good news' emanating from the whole Plan of Salvation -- but it may be a bit disappointing to those who are counting on God to have prepared a place for them wherein they can continue to live happily in their sins and rebellion.

I think by the time they have reached that point, their (former) sins and rebellion will have ceased to have any appeal for them. They don't/won't recognize that now, but it will one day be the case.

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I readily admit I seriously underestimated the despotic nature of the federal judiciary or the strength of the gay-rights juggernaut.

I won't make that mistake again.

American politics and the doctrinal realities of the Church of Jesus Christ are separate spheres, however, and foolish expectations about the Church ever caving in on the matter of homosexual behavior being unacceptable are doomed to failure.

 

Ah yes, those judicial despots... always insisting that we follow the Constitution over the desires of the Brethen.  And gay people with their fighting for equality rather than realizing, as Elder Bednar has so eloquently taught, that homosexual don't exist.  

[maxrep12]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I readily admit I seriously underestimated the despotic nature of the federal judiciary or the strength of the gay-rights juggernaut.

I won't make that mistake again.

 

I predicted 10 years ago that gay marriage would be a reality, and that it would take place much sooner than most people would expect. Scott, you didn't botch the prediction due to underestimating anything, or because you lack intelligence(you don't). You lead a sequestered life. That is why your judgement failed.

You are correct with your last prediction though. Gay marriage will be the hill the church dies on.

Edited March 3, 2016 by maxrep12