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

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

I don't agree.
Plenty of examples show otherwise.

We have our agency.

Edited March 1, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

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

8 hours ago, Gray said:

But does that mean there are also no heterosexual members of the church, since we're not defined by that kind of thing?

Correct. We are not defined by either attraction or behaviour, full-stop, and it would be ahistorical if we were. The prophets have been teaching this for as long as I can remember.

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

From an academic perspective, I don't think there's anything 'old fashioned' or 'traditionalist' about seeing through and challenging what has, in the West at least, become the hegemonic discourse. It's more subaltern.

Quote

I am still only beginning to see the differences between the Apostles - the more progressive, the more orthodox.

I just don't see it. All I hear is a single, unified message.

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Elder Bednar claims that we are not defined by sexual attraction, but then says that we are defined by gender - sons and daughters of God. How can we be defined by gender, but not have sexual attraction be part of that definition?

Because, as historians of sexuality have pointed out, the gendering of attraction is a very recent phenomenon.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's 2016, and we all know what a "homosexual" is (just like we all know what a "heterosexual" is) ...

I don't. And I'm being 100% honest. These terms are too slippery -- and the concepts behind them too new, too fluid, and too foreign -- for me to have any sense of what they're supposed to mean in any pinned-down way, and I strongly suspect such is the case amongst the vast majority of the world's people, whose languages have been colonised by these terms straight out of a defined historical moment and culture that is still almost completely alien to them.

Then add to that the fact that, as a professional historian, I actually know the genealogy of these terms and the socially constructed concepts they're supposed to signify in some always-already-existent way...

3 hours 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.

Like no prophet ever before?

Edited March 1, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rivers]

I agree with Elder Bednar although I wouldn't phrase things the way he did.  Everybody chooses their behavior.  We just need to have more empathy for those who are in a position where they have to choose acting on same-sex attraction and the church.  I can only imagine how hard that would be.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From an academic perspective, I don't think there's anything 'old fashioned' or 'traditionalist' about seeing through and challenging what has, in the West at least, become the hegemonic discourse. It's more subaltern.

I just don't see it. All I hear is a single, unified message.

I never said they didn't present a single, unified message.
I said their approaches are definitely different.  I think anyone with eyes can see the more traditionalist and the more progressive approaches.
But I am not saying they disagree on doctrine.

[Rivers]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Like no prophet ever before?

Some excell at it more than others.  But I suppose it would defeat the purpose of prophets if they only said things with which you agree.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Rivers said:

I suppose it would defeat the purpose of prophets if they only said things with which you agree.

Bingo!

Which seems to be an increasingly tough sell amongst those who seem to think they have a divine right never to be disagreed with or corrected.

[Thinking]

40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because, as historians of sexuality have pointed out, the gendering of attraction is a very recent phenomenon.

Recent because possibly the closet doors had not been opened yet?

[rodheadlee]

8 hours 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.

D&C 132.

[cinepro]

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.

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

Absolutely.

And for me, the biggest problem with his full answer (you have to watch the full 11 minute answer) is that while the first half tries to diminish the peculiarity of the challenge of homosexuality, the second half of his answer underscores why gay people are unlikely to feel that they have a place.  He takes a lot of time to emphasize the doctrine of man-woman marriage and why it is critically important to God's plan.  Where does that leave our homosexual members?

To add insult to injury, he concludes by speaking of the immense value of and joy derived from lifelong companionship in this journey.

So why would a homosexual member want to stay in the Church?

The original question that from the Chilean member seemed sincere but sadly, Elder Bednar answered it in a way that just wasn't very helpful.  Probably because there isn't a good answer.

[cinepro]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The original question that from the Chilean member seemed sincere but sadly, Elder Bednar answered it in a way that just wasn't very helpful.  Probably because there isn't a good answer.

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.

[Sky]

As a gay member of the Church, I have to take some comfort in the fact that not all of this is going to be resolved during my mortal life.  But God still loves me and is looking out for me.  He will provide a way and will compensate for any loss of blessings/ opportunities in the next life.  Whether that means I will be changed to heterosexual in the twinkling of an eye, I don't know.  Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is something that exists beyond this life, it doesn't change that this was a substantial part of how I experienced life while I was here.  And I will always honor that experience because it is part of how I came to know God.    

[Okrahomer]

3 minutes ago, Sky said:

As a gay member of the Church, I have to take some comfort in the fact that not all of this is going to be resolved during my mortal life.  But God still loves me and is looking out for me.  He will provide a way and will compensate for any loss of blessings/ opportunities in the next life.  Whether that means I will be changed to heterosexual in the twinkling of an eye, I don't know.  Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is something that exists beyond this life, it doesn't change that this was a substantial part of how I experienced life while I was here.  And I will always honor that experience because it is part of how I came to know God.    

God bless you, Sky!  

[Gray]

http://mormonsandgays.org/

 

Quote

everyone in God’s small world is our neighbor, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters

 

[sunstoned]

8 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.

I just gave you a virtual rep point.

[Five Solas]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Hopefully, this video won't become the Mormon version of this.

While this post appears to have gone ignored (perhaps out of politeness)--for what it's worth, you weren't the only one who mentally made the connection. 

--Erik

PS.  While by no means endorsing his views, you do have to admire the conviction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as manifested in his willingness to boldly & publicly rebuke American liberals on their own turf.  At least a little admiration, right?

;0)

 

[Tacenda]

Nearly the whole time I watched Sister Bednar in the video, and I saw what looked like her wanting to speak.  Like what she was hearing didn't feel right. Elder Bednar even mentions they each see things differently, male and female.  I felt like she was thinking differently alright, and she didn't like what she was hearing or maybe she was thinking he could have said it better than that.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Tacenda

[sunstoned]

7 hours 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.

 

No Russ, this is a destructive statement.  It divides and hurts people.  Therefore, it is just plain wrong.  A great many will condemn it. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

 

The main benefit of being LDS and being steadfast in the gospel are realized after death.  It is easy to be not a member of the Church in mortality.  In fact one can benefit in many ways by not being a member.  But once one dies, everything changes.  I am sure if the Lord allowed you to interview any Nephite in the spirit world who left the Church for the things of the world and they would talk your ear off of why follow the world is an losing proposition.  They would tell any LDS gay person that if they want to be miserable like they are for a long, long, long time, they would leave the Church. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

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.

 

You'd have to ask homosexual members who are faithful to church teachings.  They do exist. Elder Christopherson's brother for example.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

You'd have to ask homosexual members who are faithful to church teachings.  They do exist. Elder Christopherson's brother for example.

Elder Christofferson's brother, Tom, though he remains active was excommunicated (or resigned, I can't recall) many years ago.  He lives with his long-time partner.  

He does seem to have found a balance that works for him but I don't know how many LDS would consider him "faithful to church teachings". 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

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

This is the same question all God’s children must ask ourselves. It is part of how we accept the Gospel and obtain a testimony. We review this question every week partaking of the sacrament. The Church has a great answer: "Ask the missionaries, they can help!"

The Church offers them a reason and a way to find long lasting, deep happiness in a committed relationship with Lord first and foremost and on His terms. Putting any condition on it such as, "But what about my soccer-playing? But what about my business? But what about my money? ...Etc." is a complete distraction, a tool and a habit of the deceivers and the deceived. Luke 9:57-62.

Let’s not damn people with our prejudices of what they won’t be interested in once they find long lasting, deep happiness in a committed relationship with Lord.

To insist on using the term "homosexual LDS" In the context of what Elder Bednar is teaching in order to confound his teaching is a form of trampling the word of God underfoot; "I say, trample ...but I would speak in other words—they [the deceivers and the deceived]...hearken not to the voice of his counsels."

[CV75]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Absolutely.

Absolutely not!

He is not diminishing the peculiarity of the challenge of homosexuality. He is recognizing the challenges of the natural man and the struggling saint in a fallen world and its various conditions. God’s children are far more like than different.

Those with challenges have to understand the ideal in order to overcome their hopelessness in Christ.

Lifelong companionship – not everyone has it with another mortal. But everyone can have it with Christ. Putting Him first is how all successful, eternal relationships work.

Even deceivers and the deceived can be sincere. Both can also sincerely have a change of viewpoint, which is what Elder Bednar is offering them.

[CV75]

8 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.

We will all be changed in the afterlife; in the flesh according to the resurrection, but in the heart only if we are willing to put our relationship with Christ first. So there is no assumption that we will not want the same things we want here, The point is, "the Father has not changed His mind about how the plan should operate."

Converts and life-long members may or may not have a hard time with this teaching, depending on how compelled they are to be humble. The Church is trying to offer people a relationship with Christ so that we can return to the Father.

[stemelbow]

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.