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

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree.

The counsel from the Lord's anointed is not a pretty sight.

1 Ne 16:1-2: 

Quote

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

On 2/29/2016 at 0:04 PM, Jeanne said:

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? 

Did you seriously not read the quote?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Such an argument would carry less weight if history were not replete with instances of God changing his mind . . .

Drive-by potshots.  Facile.  No thanks.

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

Elder Bednars statement is summed up with the following scripture:

 

Quote

 

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

 16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happierpeople among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were inone, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. 4 Nephi 15-17

 

 

[canard78]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I never got around to addressing this yesterday; I shall endeavor to do so now.

Our task is to somehow find a way to teach and persuade such an individual of the eternal truths as expressed by Elders Wickman and Oaks in the quote I cited earlier:
 

(Emphasis mine)

I agree, it appears daunting, even impossible.

But the process of conversion itself is a miracle, and one that happens somewhere in the world every day. So we try to help who we can, if we can and where we can, relying on the Spirit to do the converting in accordance with the wisdom and justice of God and with an individual's exercise of his own agency.

Meanwhile, we employ the principle of triage in our outreach efforts and focus most immediately on those who can be helped now and who are the most apt to be receptive and responsive to our efforts. In my view, that includes those who experience same-sex attraction but are not yet entrenched in homosexual behavior and in fact have no desire to be and who need and desire help in avoiding it.

That is the sort of individual in most urgent need of the reassurance that Elder Wickman gives in the quote above, that the struggles he is going through now will last only for the duration of the relative "nanosecond" that amounts to our mortal existence. Should I ignore this individual's needs and downplay or avoid mentioning at all what I know to be true in the interest of not upsetting someone who is entrenched in the homosexual lifestyle and has no intention of ever changing?

No, I am going to continue to emphasize this truth, hoping that I can help someone avoid what Elder Oaks characterizes as eventual "sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities."

Would you recognise though that while your quote from Elder Wickman does support your belief that homosexual attraction will be removed in the eternities, that this quote, in its context, does not constitute doctrine. I don't have the church statement to hand, but this could also potentially fall into the category of a single statement based on a well-meaning opinion and not necessarily revelation. 

Out of interest, how would your belief and this quote reconcile with the "carnal to carnal" principle in the Book of Mormon? 

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Now you're wresting my words.

But then, you knew that.

Nope, not a pretty sight at all.

-Smac

I was just having some fun with the way you chose to word things. 

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

I mean, obviously there are homosexuals in the Church.

So what is he driving at?

Is he engaging in wish-fulfillment?  Is this the way he wants things to be?  That there are no homosexuals in the Church?

Is his desire to have no homosexuals in the church so overpowering that he is willing to say they don't exist and pretend that his word makes it so?

There is a serious issue going on here that I don't know we have touched on.

I am getting the feeling that Elder Bednar thinks that something is true just because he says it.

Regardless of the fact that what he says is demonstrably untrue.

This is troubling.

And makes me wonder what else he says is true that falls into this category . . .

 

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

FIFY.

cb, you have hope, though your commitment to the position you adopted now many years ago prevents your seeing it.

Life is hard.  It's especially hard when physical affection is denied you by circumstances not entirely of your making as you, were you to fall back to your prior position, and I, in my now former life, experience and have experienced.  Elder Bednar would see very little difference in our respective suffering, would offer to both of us the same seed of hope for relief at some point, either within or without mortality, and would offer us the same advice:  keep your covenants to the best of your ability.

Hopelessness is the coin of the Adversary.  There is always hope.

I spent most of my life trying to be straight.  I was married for over 20 years.  While I was active in the church, there was never inner peace.  I could never connect with my wife.  There was an emptiness that ate at my soul.  The contrast to how much joy in my life now is so pronounced, so striking, I could never turn back to that darkness again.  I have found my relief that you speak of.  Life is not hard.  Life is joyful hopeful, filled with love and promise.  The covenants I made were designed for those that are straight.  When that link is missing, they bring nothing but despair. Elder Bednar was not speaking to gay members.  He was speaking to straight members who need a way to understand the church's positions on this subject.  That is his job.  I certainly don't fault him for it.  And I don't fault you in accepting his message.  

Men are that they might have joy.  I have found joy in my life and I thank God every day for the blessings that he has given me.  I guess that is why I have such a hard time picture myself in the next life magically changed to some straight soul and wanting to be with a woman for eternity.  I sincerely understand why you can not see that.  For you it is more important that I fit into a box that is just not possible for me.  As I have said over and over again.  I have no idea what eternity will be for me.  But I do know that I can trust God.  That is enough.

So what is the worst that will happen to me in the next life if I continue to live a joyful life with someone I love and care for here on earth? Does anyone really know the answer to that question?  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

I was just having some fun with the way you chose to word things. 

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

I mean, obviously there are homosexuals in the Church.

So what is he driving at?

Is he engaging in wish-fulfillment?  Is this the way he wants things to be?  That there are no homosexuals in the Church?

Is his desire to have no homosexuals in the church so overpowering that he is willing to say they don't exist and pretend that his word makes it so?

There is a serious issue going on here that I don't know we have touched on.

I am getting the feeling that Elder Bednar thinks that something is true just because he says it.

Regardless of the fact that what he says is demonstrably untrue.

This is troubling.

And makes me wonder what else he says is true that falls into this category . . .

With respect, I decline to enter into a substantive discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Drive-by potshots.  Facile.  No thanks.

-Smac

Nice try, Smac.

But no dice.

Your argument was that it makes no sense to hold the position that we can disregard current counsel from Church leadership because they may change their mind some day.

I countered with the indisputable fact that Church leadership has changed their mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past.

I argue that the fact LDS leadership has changed its mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past makes it more likely they will do the same in the future.

You call this "facile."

I am not sure you know what that word means. 

 

____________________________________

EDITED TO ADD:

California Boy wrote:

Quote

So what is the worst that will happen to me in the next life if I continue to live a joyful life with someone I love and care for here on earth? Does anyone really know the answer to that question?

To which I respond:

I know the answer to that question, California Boy.

The answer is that, regardless of what happens in the next life, you will have lived a joyful life on earth with someone you love and care for.

That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

Edited March 1, 2016 by consiglieri

[PeterPear]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Nice try, Smac.

But no dice.

Your argument was that it makes no sense to hold the position that we can disregard current counsel from Church leadership because they may change their mind some day.

I countered with the indisputable fact that Church leadership has changed their mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past.

I argue that the fact LDS leadership has changed its mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past makes it more likely they will do the same in the future.

You call this "facile."

I am not sure you know what that word means. 

 

Consiglieri obviously knows the mind and will of the Lord vs The Prophet and Apostles.

Where should we send you gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh for thy Raptureness?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Nice try, Smac.

But no dice.

Your argument was that it makes no sense to hold the position that we can disregard current counsel from Church leadership because they may change their mind some day.

I countered with the indisputable fact that Church leadership has changed their mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past.

I argue that the fact LDS leadership has changed its mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past makes it more likely they will do the same in the future.

You call this "facile."

I am not sure you know what that word means. 

I think my track record demonstrates that I am somewhat capable of engaging in spirited discussion about my faith, and of generally defending the Church's position.  So it's not that I can't engage you in conversation, it's rather that I choose not to.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your argument was that it makes no sense to hold the position that we can disregard current counsel from Church leadership because they may change their mind some day.

I countered with the indisputable fact that Church leadership has changed their mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past.

I argue that the fact LDS leadership has changed its mind on many core doctrines and practices in the past makes it more likely they will do the same in the future.

I completely agree.

Interesting, but I was just reading about the "Law of Adoption" (and about to start a thread here with a few questions).  Brigham Young called the sealing of men to men "a great and glorious doctrine" and yet it is no longer practiced or even a doctrine we believe in, as far as I know. 

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

I spent most of my life trying to be straight.  I was married for over 20 years.  While I was active in the church, there was never inner peace.  I could never connect with my wife.  There was an emptiness that ate at my soul.  The contrast to how much joy in my life now is so pronounced, so striking, I could never turn back to that darkness again.  I have found my relief that you speak of.  Life is not hard.  Life is joyful hopeful, filled with love and promise.  The covenants I made were designed for those that are straight.  When that link is missing, they bring nothing but despair. Elder Bednar was not speaking to gay members.  He was speaking to straight members who need a way to understand the church's positions on this subject.  That is his job.  I certainly don't fault him for it.  And I don't fault you in accepting his message.  

Men are that they might have joy.  I have found joy in my life and I thank God every day for the blessings that he has given me.  I guess that is why I have such a hard time picture myself in the next life magically changed to some straight soul and wanting to be with a woman for eternity.  I sincerely understand why you can not see that.  For you it is more important that I fit into a box that is just not possible for me.  As I have said over and over again.  I have no idea what eternity will be for me.  But I do know that I can trust God.  That is enough.

So what is the worst that will happen to me in the next life if I continue to live a joyful life with someone I love and care for here on earth? Does anyone really know the answer to that question?  

Mormon 2:19

Quote

And wo is me because of their wickedness; for my heart has been filled with sorrow because of their wickedness, all my days; nevertheless, I know that I shall be lifted up at the last day.

 

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Consiglieri obviously knows the mind and will of the Lord vs The Prophet and Apostles.

I don't see where he's saying or inferring that anymore than anyone else here who is quoting current church leaders.  No one really knows what changes will take place in the future, but we do know of many have taken place within the past history of the church. 

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I completely agree.

Interesting, but I was just reading about the "Law of Adoption" (and about to start a thread here with a few questions).  Brigham Young called the sealing of men to men "a great and glorious doctrine" and yet it is no longer practiced or even a doctrine we believe in, as far as I know. 

The "Law of Adoption", as I understand it, pertained to a father-son relationship.  For example, John D. Lee, my wife's great-great-grandfather, was the adopted son of Brigham Young.

Are you suggesting that this doctrine was utilized to seal men to other men as spouses?  As in a marital/sexual relationship?  If so, CFR.

Also, as to the point I raised previously: Do you think that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to disobey commandments which are in force and effect now by claiming that God may change His mind about such commandments in the future?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 2, 2016 by smac97

[canard78]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

I was just having some fun with the way you chose to word things. 

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

I mean, obviously there are homosexuals in the Church.

So what is he driving at?

Is he engaging in wish-fulfillment?  Is this the way he wants things to be?  That there are no homosexuals in the Church?

Is his desire to have no homosexuals in the church so overpowering that he is willing to say they don't exist and pretend that his word makes it so?

There is a serious issue going on here that I don't know we have touched on.

I am getting the feeling that Elder Bednar thinks that something is true just because he says it.

Regardless of the fact that what he says is demonstrably untrue.

This is troubling.

And makes me wonder what else he says is true that falls into this category . . .

 

 

What is he driving at? Have you spent the 10 minutes needed to watch the full clip?

I think it's clear what he's "driving at." He's trying to remove the tendency to define members who are gay as being distinctly different in being able to label or classify them. 

His point is that their membership shouldn't filtered or classified by their sexuality. He describes homosexuality as a tribulation of the flesh, much as being excessively good looking or physically less able is too. 

He proposes that, just as we wouldn't create the label of "handsome members" or "disabled members" that we also shouldn't encourage the label and perhaps even sub-culture of "gay Mormon."

He explicitly acknowledges that there are members of the church with SSA and offers clear instruction of how they should live to stay in good standing. 

I'm not saying I agree with his approach, just that it is clear what he's driving at. 

[USU78]

Just now, smac97 said:

The "Law of Adoption", as I understand it, pertained to a father-son relationship.  For example, John D. Lee, my wife's great-great-grandfather, was the adopted son of Brigham Young.

Are you suggesting that this doctrine was utilized to seal men to other men as spouses?  As in a marital/sexual relationship?  If so, CFR.

Thanks,

-Smac

My G-G-Grandfather was adopted by BY.  I have seen their correspondence:  BY didn't see his role as "father" in quite the same way my daddy-seeking ancestor did. 

But to suggest something so vile as sexual congress between those "father/son" sealings is the ultimate in wishful thinking.  Certainly it's unsupportable by any evidence I've encountered.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, canard78 said:

What is he driving at? Have you spent the 10 minutes needed to watch the full clip?

I think it's clear what he's "driving at." He's trying to remove the tendency to define members who are gay as being distinctly different in being able to label or classify them. 

His point is that their membership shouldn't filtered or classified by their sexuality. He describes homosexuality as a tribulation of the flesh, much as being excessively good looking or physically less able is too. 

I agree with you on the point the Elder Bednar was trying to make.  Sadly, he followed it up with a rather lengthy monologue on, what I'll call, the "doctrine of heterosexuality" within Mormonism.

So, while he started by telling people to not define themselves by their sexual orientation, he ended by explaining that heterosexuals should not only define themselves that way but that it is the only way to eternal salvation.

 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I completely agree.

Interesting, but I was just reading about the "Law of Adoption" (and about to start a thread here with a few questions).  Brigham Young called the sealing of men to men "a great and glorious doctrine" and yet it is no longer practiced or even a doctrine we believe in, as far as I know. 

What's interesting is how many of the abandoned LDS doctrines have to do with the sealing ordinance:

Law of Adoption

Plural Marriage

Sealing of people as something other than spouse:  Servant, for example

Prohibiting Temple Ordinances for those of African Descent

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "Law of Adoption", as I understand it, pertained to a father-son relationship.  For example, John D. Lee, my wife's great-great-grandfather, was the adopted son of Brigham Young.

Are you suggesting that this doctrine was utilized to seal men to other men as spouses?  As in a marital/sexual relationship?  If so, CFR.

 

Of course not!  (And I just started a thread about this law as to not derail this one....I almost put in bold at the bottom of my OP that I adamantly do not believe this had anything to do with SSM, etc., but thought that I shouldn't even start anything.  Maybe I should have now that I read your post).

But it is an example of a past doctrine that is no longer practiced or taught.  Same with the teachings by Brigham Young regarding Adam/God.

So teachings and opinions from our Prophets and leaders change and even doctrine changes.  That's why no one can claim that there won't be changes in the future.  

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[lost in the fog]

As one who often feels lost, I hope  Elder Bednar would agree that there are sinners in the church!

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What's interesting is how many of the abandoned LDS doctrines have to do with the sealing ordinance:

Law of Adoption

Plural Marriage

Sealing of people as something other than spouse:  Servant, for example

Prohibiting Temple Ordinances for those of African Descent

Very true.  Again, an indication that doctrine changes and evolves.  I don't think anyone can argue that this hasn't happened in the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So when your two-edged sword is busy cutting asunder happily married gay people and their children, that is supposed to make them happy both here and in the hereafter?

Do you actually believe what it is you are saying?

Do you see how limited, how narrow, how mind-boggling bigoted this belief is?

Obeying the laws of God and following a course of righteousness leads ultimately to a fullness of joy, regardless of whether that is readily apparent in the moment. 

Conversely, disregarding the laws of God and pursuing ones own pleasure that is out of conformity with those laws leads ultimately to unhappiness and grief, regardless of whether that is readily apparent in the moment. 

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My G-G-Grandfather was adopted by BY.  I have seen their correspondence:  BY didn't see his role as "father" in quite the same way my daddy-seeking ancestor did. 

But to suggest something so vile as sexual congress between those "father/son" sealings is the ultimate in wishful thinking.  Certainly it's unsupportable by any evidence I've encountered.

Again, I just started a new thread about this.  But, let me ask you...

Who was your G-G-Grandfather sealed to for his Mother if BY was his Father?  Did he write anything about that?  Just curious...which woman is he sealed to for eternity (Mother)?

(Who has suggested there was a "sexual congress between" the men?)

.

Edited March 2, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course not!  (And I just started a thread about this law as to not derail this one....I almost put in bold at the bottom of my OP that I adamantly do not believe this had anything to do with SSM, etc., but thought that I shouldn't even start anything.  Maybe I should have now that I read your post).

But it is an example of a past doctrine that is no longer practiced or taught.  Same with the teachings by Brigham Young regarding Adam/God.

So teachings and opinions from our Prophets and leaders change and even doctrine changes.  That's why no one can claim that there won't be changes in the future.  

.

Okay.  But again: Do you think that Latter-day Saints are at liberty to disobey commandments which are in force and effect now by claiming that God may change His mind about such commandments in the future?

Thanks,

-Smac