Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Northwestcoug]

You're trying far too hard. And in doing so you're either missing or ignoring the point. The question was how could a homosexual member remain faithful to the church. Bednar's response was on point. He said there is no such thing as a homosexual member attempting to remain faithful there are simply sons and daughters of God trying to be faithful. In other words, everybody remains faithful and obedient in the same way. This has absolutely nothing to do with the political and social construct put forth by the ayatollah. That you persist in trying to draw the parallel reveals more about your bias and attitude than it does Bednar's.

You know, I did say in my first sentence that his comment wasn't as bad as the Iranian's. But I guess it revealed a ton about my bias. I guess I wasn't trying hard enough!

Look, from what I understand, Iranian dude was saying there are no gays, period, in Iran. Bednar acknowledges their existence, but he is saying we shouldn't use the term 'homosexual' to describe members. And there's only one reason why he'd doing that: to differentiate the church's definition of homosexuality from the rest of the world. I think it's a hopeless cause; much of the world (and many members) have no qualms accepting the term 'homosexual' and all that it implies. I really do believe Bednar and others are fighting a losing battle.

[creekster]

You know, I did say in my first sentence that his comment wasn't as bad as the Iranian's. But I guess it revealed a ton about my bias. I guess I wasn't trying hard enough!

Look, from what I understand, Iranian dude was saying there are no gays, period, in Iran. Bednar acknowledges their existence, but he is saying we shouldn't use the term 'homosexual' to describe members. And there's only one reason why he'd doing that: to differentiate the church's definition of homosexuality from the rest of the world. I think it's a hopeless cause; much of the world (and many members) have no qualms accepting the term 'homosexual' and all that it implies. I really do believe Bednar and others are fighting a losing battle.

You're still missing it. At this point you're either ignoring what I wrote and what bednar was talking about because you want to pursue your own narrative or you simply arent getting it. Bednar isn't trying to redefine homosexuality, he's trying to take all sexuality out of the equation. There is no point in asking how a homosexual member remains faithful. Just as there's no point in asking how a texans remain faithful or how does an Inuit remain faithful. These are irrelevant distinctions from the Gospel's perspective. He's saying that one's effort to remain faithful is based upon the principles of the Gospel and not upon the sexual preferences or orientation you bring to those principles.

Moreover, it's not just that it's not "as bad" as what the ayatollah said, it's that it has absolutely nothing to do with what the ayatollah said. The ayatollah was speaking in a social and political context that Bednar's comment doesn't even approach. At this point it seems fairly clear that your bias is to condemn Bednarz his comment. While I am no fan of some of the things he says, this particular comparison is odious for the fact that it's made, not because of its legitimacy.

[Northwestcoug]

You're still missing it. At this point you're either ignoring what I wrote and what bednar was talking about because you want to pursue your own narrative or you simply arent getting it. Bednar isn't trying to redefine homosexuality, he's trying to take all sexuality out of the equation. There is no point in asking how a homosexual member remains faithful. Just as there's no point in asking how a texans remain faithful or how does an Inuit remain faithful. These are irrelevant distinctions from the Gospel's perspective. He's saying that one's effort to remain faithful is based upon the principles of the Gospel and not upon the sexual preferences or orientation you bring to those principles.

Moreover, it's not just that it's not "as bad" as what the ayatollah said, it's that it has absolutely nothing to do with what the ayatollah said. The ayatollah was speaking in a social and political context that Bednar's comment doesn't even approach. At this point it seems fairly clear that your bias is to condemn Bednarz his comment. While I am no fan of some of the things he says, this particular comparison is odious for the fact that it's made, not because of its legitimacy.

OK Creek. Let me ask you this: What is the impetus for Bednar saying, "there are no homosexuals in the church" to the question, "how does a homosexual remain faithful in the church?" What is so important for him to make that blanket assertion? Why is there still a movement in the church, to not refer to members as gay or homosexual, but to use the term 'same-sex attracted'? I think it is pretty clear what he is trying to do. He believes that people are not inherently homosexual. It goes against his understanding of the gospel to believe that there are people who define their whole being as homosexual. The term 'same-sex attracted', and lumping it together with other physical afflictions (I haven't even gone into how that is degrading to, ahem, 'gay' members), is an attempt to define members based on the gospel's definition of gender and sexuality.

How is that not trying to redefine homosexuality?

[Maximus]

OK Creek. Let me ask you this: What is the impetus for Bednar saying, "there are no homosexuals in the church" to the question, "how does a homosexual remain faithful in the church?"?

h

creek said exactly what he is talking about. he is not trying to say there are no homosexuals, he is saying homosexuals have no different path than everyone else

[Non Sequitur]

You're still missing it. At this point you're either ignoring what I wrote and what bednar was talking about because you want to pursue your own narrative or you simply arent getting it. Bednar isn't trying to redefine homosexuality, he's trying to take all sexuality out of the equation. There is no point in asking how a homosexual member remains faithful. Just as there's no point in asking how a texans remain faithful or how does an Inuit remain faithful. These are irrelevant distinctions from the Gospel's perspective. He's saying that one's effort to remain faithful is based upon the principles of the Gospel and not upon the sexual preferences or orientation you bring to those principles.

Moreover, it's not just that it's not "as bad" as what the ayatollah said, it's that it has absolutely nothing to do with what the ayatollah said. The ayatollah was speaking in a social and political context that Bednar's comment doesn't even approach. At this point it seems fairly clear that your bias is to condemn Bednarz his comment. While I am no fan of some of the things he says, this particular comparison is odious for the fact that it's made, not because of its legitimacy.

Not that it's a significant distinction, but it was Ahmadinjihad that said it, not the Ayatollah. You can argue all day about how well crafted Bednar's remarks were, but when it comes down to it, he is deflecting from the obvious underlying issue and it's difficult to think that he's not.

[Northwestcoug]

h

creek said exactly what he is talking about. he is not trying to say there are no homosexuals, he is saying homosexuals have no different path than everyone else

In other words, he is redefining homosexuality in the context of the gospel. It's his right to do that, by the way. My argument is that 'there are no homosexuals in the church' is a very loaded term, and there's a very important reason why he says that. I doubt you will find many gay people, and even most gay members who are still in the church, who view their sexuality as either transient in this life or an affliction. I know there are some, and I have a family member who sees himself this way. But the vast majority of them do not view their homosexuality in temporal terms. It is simply who they are. Bednar wants to change that, at least for gay members.

[Non Sequitur]

h

creek said exactly what he is talking about. he is not trying to say there are no homosexuals, he is saying homosexuals have no different path than everyone else

If there is no different path, then why are children of gay parents not allowed to be baptized?

[byu71]

You're still missing it. At this point you're either ignoring what I wrote and what bednar was talking about because you want to pursue your own narrative or you simply arent getting it. Bednar isn't trying to redefine homosexuality, he's trying to take all sexuality out of the equation. There is no point in asking how a homosexual member remains faithful. Just as there's no point in asking how a texans remain faithful or how does an Inuit remain faithful. These are irrelevant distinctions from the Gospel's perspective. He's saying that one's effort to remain faithful is based upon the principles of the Gospel and not upon the sexual preferences or orientation you bring to those principles.

Moreover, it's not just that it's not "as bad" as what the ayatollah said, it's that it has absolutely nothing to do with what the ayatollah said. The ayatollah was speaking in a social and political context that Bednar's comment doesn't even approach. At this point it seems fairly clear that your bias is to condemn Bednarz his comment. While I am no fan of some of the things he says, this particular comparison is odious for the fact that it's made, not because of its legitimacy.

I get your point, but what if the question asked was how do single people remain faithful members. Do you honestly believe his response would be, there are no single people in the church?

I am afraid to anyone who is not very, very loyal, the response just sounds odd. Perhaps though he doesn't really care how those who aren't very, very loyal responds. That is OK with me by the way.

[creekster]

If there is no different path, then why are children of gay parents not allowed to be baptized?

Red herring and a different issue. But, honestly, I do not understand that policy and think and hope it will be changed asap.

[old_gregg]

i don't get what the big deal is. i dislike bednar as much as the next guy who is afraid of sentient general authority robots with perfect hair and emotionless beady eyes, but it seems like he clearly misspoke and didn't mean to say what he said.

[creekster]

I get your point, but what if the question asked was how do single people remain faithful members. Do you honestly believe his response would be, there are no single people in the church?

I am afraid to anyone who is not very, very loyal, the response just sounds odd. Perhaps though he doesn't really care how those who aren't very, very loyal responds. That is OK with me by the way.

He did not say "There are no homosexual people in the church." That iteration is from the formula presented by the Iranian President. Bednar said he was rephrasing the question because we are, none of use, defined by sexual attraction or preference, or by any other physical limitation or propensity. Rather than pretend that homosexual orientation doesn't exist, Bednar is tacitly conceding such things exist and are a physical reality. That said, like and child of God, homosexuals and others, and this would include single people, must be obedient and faithful. Now you might not like that the church's version of obedience anf faith precludes acting on homosexual orientations, but that is different and he is not pretending that doesn't exist, nor does he say it isn't real.

At the very least, it seems that everyone agrees the comparison to the Iranian president's statement was, as Lebowski said, ludicrous.

[byu71]

He did not say "There are no homosexual people in the church." That iteration is from the formula presented by the Iranian President. Bednar said he was rephrasing the question because we are, none of use, defined by sexual attraction or preference, or by any other physical limitation or propensity. Rather than pretend that homosexual orientation doesn't exist, Bednar is tacitly conceding such things exist and are a physical reality. That said, like and child of God, homosexuals and others, and this would include single people, must be obedient and faithful. Now you might not like that the church's version of obedience anf faith precludes acting on homosexual orientations, but that is different and he is not pretending that doesn't exist, nor does he say it isn't real.

At the very least, it seems that everyone agrees the comparison to the Iranian president's statement was, as Lebowski said, ludicrous.

I have no problem whatsoever with the churches stance on homosexuals. I have a choice to agree or disagree. It isn't like I belong to a club where we get to vote now and then on the club's policies.
If it bothers me too much I can choose to move on and by the way I wouldn't have a need to bash the church when I did move on.

I do understand how social/family mormons have a major conflict when they don't believe but must stay in the organization.

[Non Sequitur]

Red herring and a different issue. But, honestly, I do not understand that policy and think and hope it will be changed asap.

I think we all understand the policy. The Church wants to root out a generation of people that might be sympathetic to same-sex marriage. It's that simple.

[Moliere]

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/mor...of-the-church/

So I guess there is no need to hold a church court for so called homosexual members. They don't exist and the members are not defined by sexual behavior. Good to know.

Articles like this only hurt the post-Mormon cause. What a ridiculous comparison. Bednars remarks are a bit insensitive but they are not even in the same zip code as the Iranian remarks.

This reminds me of that article that blamed the church for some absurd number of recent suicides among gays since the changing of the policy. It turns out the number of supposed suicides was more than the total fatalities among that age group, thus the number was totally made up. Which is bad because one suicide is bad enough it falsely reporting an exaggerated number just discredits an otherwise valid critique.

[creekster]

I think we all understand the policy. The Church wants to root out a generation of people that might be sympathetic to same-marriage. It's that simple.

That is one conclusion. But without more information one's conclusion will be based more on pre-disposition than actual facts.