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

[canard78]

29 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.

 

Don't feed the troll people. 

Russell's a troll... Right???

Oh bother... woopsydaisy... I fed him. Sorry. 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Elder Bednar is the new Boyd K. Packer.  He has taken on the mantel of saying controversial things and ticking people off.

In our mission he was the "pickle" apostle for that famous pickle analogy he used early on. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

How can can one be as certain as possible about a thing and not know it?

I repeat that I know with certainty, (supported by at least two statements on official Church media, already cited here), that homosexuality is not a condition that will prevail in the hereafter.

And I am the world's foremost expert on whether or not I know a thing.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Don't feed the troll people. 

Russell's a troll... Right???

Oh bother... woopsydaisy... I fed him. Sorry. 

Russell is not a troll.

[Thinking]

1 hour 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.

Does this mean that you have a perfect knowledge of this thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

Does this mean that you have a perfect knowledge of this thing.

Yup.

 

[USU78]

5 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."

Bravo! 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How can can one be as certain as possible about a thing and not know it?

I repeat that I know with certainty, (supported by at least two statements on official Church media, already cited here), that homosexuality is not a condition that will prevail in the hereafter.

And I am the world's foremost expert on whether or not I know a thing.

 

You crack me up  

Of course someone can be "as certain as possible about a thing" and still not "know for certain".   There's a difference.  If you can't see that, then ok.  I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you on this...but you are the one who is such a stickler for using the correct words, so I think this is quite funny.

Carry on though....

 

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Jude2 said:

16 minutes ago, Jude2 said:

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

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

okay.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, 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?  

CFR that 'science' has "proven his statement wrong."

[rockpond]

5 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 haven't read all 4 pages of the thread so maybe I'm repeating the same idea here but his comments just create more confusion.

We are not solely defined by sexual attraction.  But it certainly plays a huge role in church teachings about God's plan for us.

Are we really going back to a place doctrinally where we don't even admit that there are homosexual members of the church?

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Elder Bednar is the new Boyd K. Packer.  He has taken on the mantel of saying controversial things and ticking people off.

1 Ne 16:1-2:  "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.'   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."  [Emphasis added].

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You crack me up  

Of course someone can be "as certain as possible about a thing" and still not "know for certain".   There's a difference.  If you can't see that, then ok.  I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you on this...but you are the one who is such a stickler for using the correct words, so I think this is quite funny.

Carry on though....

 

Laugh it up if you like. Just know that it is not self-evident.

 

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Laugh it up if you like. Just know that it is not self-evident.

 

I can only "be as certain as possible" about that  

 

[CV75]

1 hour 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.

Actually, he is refusing to cater to the superficial act of labeling members of the Church in order to get to the all-important root of identifying as children of God as a key means to find true happiness and to facilitate it in others.

If I understand correctly, the question was, “How can they make homosexual members of the church to live and remain steadfast in the gospel?”

We are all members. The double label of “homosexual member” separates membership status on the basis of making taboo sexual behavior an acceptable or tolerated part of living and remaining steadfast in the gospel (which is disingenuous), as opposed to labels that help programmatically on the basis of age, gender, etc. in the various ministrations of the Church.

His focus on agency has as much to do with the Church not taking on the role of “making” homosexual members do / become something as much as it is to emphasize individual responsibility for one’s actions.

Are you an LDS soccer player? A soccer-playing member? Doesn’t matter!

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

For reference, here is Elder Bednar's response:

 

So we do not discriminate and we are not “bigots”. 

In all honesty and candor, I'd REALLY love for an LDS leader to please clarify how they define the terms "discrimination" and "bigotry" when making assertions like the above.  I frequently hear such claims being made (that "we don't discriminate and we're not bigots"), but when I try to pry further to understand, I'm mostly shouted down or maligned as further evidence that Latter-day Saints are unjustly being accused of discrimination and bigotry, while still avoiding the substance of how the terms are being used.

While I agree that simply labeling someone as "bigoted" or as someone who's "discriminating" shouldn't be used as any sort of "trump card" to end conversation or claim immediate victory, I also think that it's unfair to immediately silence any requests for clarification to accurately align terms with their accompanying behaviors.

And I only say this because, from my perspective, many of LDS Leadership's behaviors over the last 20 years definitely seem to me to fit the bill on both counts (church members' heavy involvement in promoting and passing Hawaii's Amendment 2, Utah's Amendment 3, California's Prop 22 and Prop 8, refuse to support anti-discrimination or hate-crime laws on sexual orientation on the same basis that such laws protect religious affiliation, etc.) but whenever I ask, I'm shut down with the accompanying accusations that I'm being unfair and the "real" hateful one.  I'm willing to suspend disbelief enough to allow any one of the apostles to clarify how they are using the terms when they claim they don't discriminate and aren't bigoted.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Actually, he is refusing to cater to the superficial act of labeling members of the Church in order to get to the all-important root of identifying as children of God as a key means to find true happiness and to facilitate it in others.

If I understand correctly, the question was, “How can they make homosexual members of the church to live and remain steadfast in the gospel?”

We are all members. The double label of “homosexual member” separates membership status on the basis of making taboo sexual behavior an acceptable or tolerated part of living and remaining steadfast in the gospel (which is disingenuous), as opposed to labels that help programmatically on the basis of age, gender, etc. in the various ministrations of the Church.

His focus on agency has as much to do with the Church not taking on the role of “making” homosexual members do / become something as much as it is to emphasize individual responsibility for one’s actions.

Are you an LDS soccer player? A soccer-playing member? Doesn’t matter!

But there is a difference in expectations for homosexual members and heterosexual members.  So it is an important distinction (and a very important question).

Homosexual members are to stay celibate and wait for the next life to find an eternal companion (assuming they don't feel they can make an mixed-orientation marriage work in this life).  Heterosexual members are to date, court, marry, be sealed, and have children in this life (to every extent possible).

Different paths.  Different expectations.  His answer ignores that and is not helpful.

 

[CV75]

2 hours 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.

Our attractions are a challenge when we self-label, self-identify and behave primarily on those bases (whether that means acting sinfully or avoiding Church because of one’s attractions). He said good looks can be a challenge for the same reason.

Nowhere did he say “homosexuality is an orientation to be overcome.” He said we have choice in how we view ourselves and moral agency in how we behave in relation to our attractions and enticements (very basic scripture).

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

But there is a difference in expectations for homosexual members and heterosexual members.  So it is an important distinction (and a very important question).

Homosexual members are to stay celibate and wait for the next life to find an eternal companion (assuming they don't feel they can make an mixed-orientation marriage work in this life).  Heterosexual members are to date, court, marry, be sealed, and have children in this life (to every extent possible).

Different paths.  Different expectations.  His answer ignores that and is not helpful.

 

His answer doesn't ignore this.  His answer refuses to accept that there are two separate types of people here.  He instead correctly points out that there are only God's children, and no matter what attractions they are born with, they have the same ability to choose.

It is the worlds transfer of someone born with an attraction to become a newly minted class of people, separate and distinct, that he doesn't seem willing to accept.
And I agree with him.  Who and what we are attracted to doesn't change our being God's children who are required to follow the path God has set out for us.  If our path is wrong, regardless of reason, we need to get off of it.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In all honesty and candor, I'd REALLY love for an LDS leader to please clarify how they define the terms "discrimination" and "bigotry" when making assertions like the above.  I frequently hear such claims being made (that "we don't discriminate and we're not bigots"), but when I try to pry further to understand, I'm mostly shouted down or maligned as further evidence that Latter-day Saints are unjustly being accused of discrimination and bigotry, while still avoiding the substance of how the terms are being used.

While I agree that simply labeling someone as "bigoted" or as someone who's "discriminating" shouldn't be used as any sort of "trump card" to end conversation or claim immediate victory, I also think that it's unfair to immediately silence any requests for clarification to accurately align terms with their accompanying behaviors.

And I only say this because, from my perspective, many of LDS Leadership's behaviors over the last 20 years definitely seem to me to fit the bill on both counts (church members' heavy involvement in promoting and passing Hawaii's Amendment 2, Utah's Amendment 3, California's Prop 22 and Prop 8, refuse to support anti-discrimination or hate-crime laws on sexual orientation on the same basis that such laws protect religious affiliation, etc.) but whenever I ask, I'm shut down with the accompanying accusations that I'm being unfair and the "real" hateful one.  I'm willing to suspend disbelief enough to allow any one of the apostles to clarify how they are using the terms when they claim they don't discriminate and aren't bigoted.

Yeah  ...  Mormons are awful.  Remember this?  Warning, pretty awful language:

 

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

homosexual members and heterosexual members

But there are no such things but what one has artificially designated as such, one of many social constructs of a fallen world, designed to keep people from Christ. Can you extricate yourself from the trap?

Can you stop labeling people to argue that they are the only class that must "wait for the next life to find an eternal companion?"

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

His answer doesn't ignore this.  His answer refuses to accept that there are two separate types of people here.  He instead correctly points out that there are only God's children, and no matter what attractions they are born with, they have the same ability to choose.

Same ability to choose what?  A homosexual doesn't have the same ability to choose to enter into a heterosexual marriage.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But there are no such things but what one has artificially designated as such, one of many social constructs of a fallen world, designed to keep people from Christ. Can you extricate yourself from the trap?

Can you stop labeling people to argue that they are the only class that must "wait for the next life to find an eternal companion?"

They aren't the "only class" but they are different.  It's not wrong to acknowledge that and to answer a question about how to help them stay strong in the gospel.

 

[jboy]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Same ability to choose what?  A homosexual doesn't have the same ability to choose to enter into a heterosexual marriage.

Why?  Do you really believe relationships are all about sexual attraction?  You might not LIKE the choice, but the choice is there nonetheless.  What about heteros who never have the chance to marry? I guess sacrifice and trials are only suposed to pertain to easy things.  Sexual attraction and gratification is not love.  All I hear are excuses based on desires to act on lust.  We're here to be TRIED & TESTED, remember?  What are you willing to forego or sacrifice?  Honestly think about that, because we'll ALL be asked (or forced) to give up or forego things we greatly desire.  How we react to and deal with that is what counts, no?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

They aren't the "only class" but they are different.  It's not wrong to acknowledge that and to answer a question about how to help them stay strong in the gospel.

The first step to abolish all such artificial classes in one's personal view of God's children. The scriptures are replete with such admonition. The second is to answer the question in a way that teaches others to see God's children as He does.

Elder Bednar acknowledges the misuse of the term and its misapplication to the Gospel in the question in which it is used by explaining why he wants to change the question! People who want help staying strong in the Gospel will be willing to listen to the answer from an authoritative source which is in alignment with the scriptures on how we are to view ourselves.