- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thank you for posting this on here. I saw an article about it pop up on my social media a while ago and watched the clip. I understand his perspective. I used to share it, which is why I’m so frustrated with his conclusions. To clarify, just because I “understand” his perspective doesn’t mean I in any way support what he is saying about this. I used to think like him. I no longer do. It seems to me, Elder Bednar considers homosexuality a genetic disadvantage—to be treated and looked at as a disease. For him, letting people self-identify as homosexual is unacceptable, because that legitimizes and empowers. He would rather people say, “I have same-gender attraction” like a person would profess to “have” a disease. This is telling. Also, forgive me this ounce of sassiness: If you often find the need to say “I am not a bigot,” you probably are.
Some people might take issue with that, but I’m not up here saying that all bigots are horrible people. They can also do good things. To me, his message is this: “Homosexuality doesn’t fit into the plan. If you have homosexual tendencies, fight the good fight and don’t give in to them or else.” I know we talk a lot about compassion, but the doctrine itself isn’t very compassionate, imo. There is a line in the sand and if you’re LGBT, tough luck. We “love” you but if you choose to act on very power natural inclinations, you’re out of the club. It’s black and white now. It hurts my heart. What happens when a person is transgender…who was assigned the sex “male” at birth but every fiber of their being tells them that they’re a woman—that that’s a huge part of their identity—and they’re literally being driven insane by continuing to “be” a man? When to abide by the Church’s requirements makes them do something which drives them to suicide? How is that a Plan of Happiness?
I don’t know how the Church is going to get passed this. I don’t know how I’m going to make this work. For me, I don’t want to support an organization or even appear to be supporting an organization that causes this kind of pain. It’s getting to that point for me. Yes, treating people with compassion is one thing, but I’m feeling like the doctrine itself isn’t very compassionate. With policies which deem homosexual relationships so evil, that if your parent cohabitated with a same-sex partner at any point of your childhood, you have to get special permission from the First Presidency to get baptized…it’s so defensive and unkind to me. It also wreaks of fear—fear of what will happen if they show any compassion or tolerance for LGBT members who are in loving same-sex relationships.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if we’re going to see any movement on this anytime soon. The Church is actually ahead of the curve in these issues compared to most of the world. Similarly, while the United States surely has gender issues, compared to much of the world, the Church’s views are, again, quite progressive. Bad news. I feel like with the race and the priesthood ban, it was a different situation because while racism is a global issue, the United States particularly had a bad legacy and status. With treatment of LGBT people, as well as gender issues, the Church, and Utah-Mormon culture which influences it, is not in the “worst” level of the world, not by a longshot. With the Priesthood Ban we were having problems as a church, internationally, because of the ban. With this issue….I don’t see much push for change that the leadership won’t brush off as “persecution.” Clearly I’m pretty defeated about all this.
I don’t know that I would characterize the church as “progressive” on this issue. Certainly it is not the “worst”…but that doesn’t’ really make me feel better about it. university wrote:To me, his message is this: “Homosexuality doesn’t fit into the plan. If you have homosexual tendencies, fight the good fight and don’t give in to them or else.” I know we talk a lot about compassion, but the doctrine itself isn’t very compassionate, imo.
No…it is not compassionate. It just doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t seem to go along with “leave the 99 and go find and love the one”. It feels much more like “sorry about that one, but let’s focus to protect the 99 and keep our numbers up”.
When it doesn’t feel right, when it doesn’t seem to go along with gospel principles and teachings, but just becomes about “rules” and “sin” and “obedience to the words of church leaders”…we have a history of clinging to those too long.
I’m finding I feel better about myself when I cling to the feelings in my heart, and find the right things to be compassionate about.
university wrote:I don’t know how the Church is going to get passed this.
It’s funny, most of the time I’d be inclined to complain about how the church goes tight-lipped on a subject instead of being proactive in correcting dated teachings. This is one area where I think it would be a good idea for most leaders to go tight-lipped. It’s a start.
university wrote:It hurts my heart. What happens when a person is transgender…who was assigned the sex “male” at birth but every fiber of their being tells them that they’re a woman—that that’s a huge part of their identity—and they’re literally being driven insane by continuing to “be” a man?
It hurts my heart too. I am still holding out hope that there might be some evolution of thought on this issue – particularly in regards to transgender individuals.
Just a year ago Elder Oaks was on record as saying:
Quote:This question concerns transgender, and I think we need to acknowledge that while we have been acquainted with lesbians and homosexuals for some time, being acquainted with the unique problems of a transgender situation is something we have not had so much experience with, and we have some unfinished business in teaching on that.
5-6 years ago, I would have been nodding along with Bednar’s answer. 18 months ago, my stomach would have been in huge knots trying to reconcile Bednar’s statements with how I felt. Now, I love how I can disagree completely with him and not feel like I’m disagreeing with God. A faith crisis/transition can be liberating at times. churchistrue wrote:Not sure if this is significant or not, but he said “The Father has not changed his mind about how his plan should operate.” Optimistic view could interpret this as a hedge for possible future change?
I’m trying to look at this optimistically. Using the present perfect tense instead of using “will” does leave open the possibility to the church changing its stance. However, since I already think he’s wrong on this issue, none of his statements here hold water for me.
dtrom34 wrote:5-6 years ago, I would have been nodding along with Bednar’s answer. 18 months ago, my stomach would have been in huge knots trying to reconcile Bednar’s statements with how I felt. Now, I love how I can disagree completely with him and not feel like I’m disagreeing with God. A faith crisis/transition can be liberating at times.
Yes it is. It’s also proof that there’s hope for Beddy.
churchistrue wrote:Not sure if this is significant or not, but he said “The Father has not changed his mind about how his plan should operate.” Optimistic view could interpret this as a hedge for possible future change?
I took it as him saying it sarcastically but that’s all on me. Heck, anyone will tell you that the best stories have really good villains.
:angel: nibbler wrote:dtrom34 wrote:5-6 years ago, I would have been nodding along with Bednar’s answer. 18 months ago, my stomach would have been in huge knots trying to reconcile Bednar’s statements with how I felt. Now, I love how I can disagree completely with him and not feel like I’m disagreeing with God. A faith crisis/transition can be liberating at times.
Yes it is. It’s also proof that there’s hope for …
Elder Bednar? I’d like to think so, but average Joes like us don’t compare shaking our hands to encountering God at final judgment. I just don’t know if it bodes well.
Elder Bednar gave some follow up comments to this question in explaining the importance of heterosexual marriage. He said that men and women perceive and process things differently. He has learned so much from his wife because of how different she is from him. He said something to the effect of marriage being a mind opening education that God had designed. I found myself thinking that if women add a unique perspective that is valuable then why are they not in more leadership positions where their voice can be heard and they can contribute? I know that the church is making some tiny strides in this area but the question still begs to be asked.
Roy wrote:Elder Bednar gave some follow up comments to this question in explaining the importance of heterosexual marriage. He said that men and women perceive and process things differently. He has learned so much from his wife because of how different she is from him. He said something to the effect of marriage being a mind opening education that God had designed. I found myself thinking that if women add a unique perspective that is valuable then why are they not in more leadership positions where their voice can be heard and they can contribute?
That portion of the discussion didn’t work for me. Two heads are better than one can hold true outside the construct of heterosexual marriages.
How about: homosexuals perceive and process things differently so we better not run them all off; otherwise we’d be missing valuable mind opening opportunities that god has designed.
If both men and women both bring something to the table, then why did elder Bednar turn around and ask the other men if they had anything more to add, but didn’t ask his wife! Sorry – the feminist in me was just yelling “did he really just do that?” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was reading an article about Mrs. Reagan and how she supported and influenced her husband from the shadows. The article argued that she softened and mellowed Pres. Reagan’s policies for the better of all. I wonder if this might be what Elder Bednar is talking about. That marriage is important because it makes the husband a better man and leader than he would be without the influence of his wife. In this scenario, it would not be appropriate for a wife to step forward and ask for a seat at the decision making table. Her role is to support and influence her husband for the better and to do her work from his shadow. I suppose it might be like the old adage, “Behind every great man is a great woman.” Women already have their voices heard in leadership counsels through the influence that they have on their husbands.
LookingHard wrote:If both men and women both bring something to the table, then why did elder Bednar turn around and ask the other men if they had anything more to add, but didn’t ask his wife! Sorry – the feminist in me was just yelling “did he really just do that?”
If this is his mindset (and admittedly this is only a theory), then it would not have been Mrs. Bednar’s place to add anything to her husband’s comments. If she has any concerns then she can discuss that with him in private and not risk stealing any of her husband’s thunder in public.
Interesting possibility.
Roy, you bringing up Nancy Reagan and how she supported her husband “in the shadows” is interesting to me. On the one hand, I completely get it. I love NOT being in the spotlight. I really enjoy working behind the scenes and tinkering with things, not being the one who presents them. However.
To relegate this to a wife’s “role”, is also completely foreign to me. If I get married, and people view it as my role/responsibility/what have you to support my husband so that he can go be a better leader/go-getter/whatever in the world, I vote no. I will stay single. Yes, I understand the importance of doing that in a marriage, but it sure better work both ways. He better do the exact same thing for me, and I better be just as allowed to go out and do things in the world (as I so choose, or don’t choose) as he does. The idea that a man needs a “woman’s touch” to not be so awful just doesn’t sit right with me. If you want a woman’s voice heard in counsels, then let her in the counsel. Any influence she has on her husband will still be coming through her husband. Just like anything any of us believe we get from a higher power is, by necessity, filtered through our experience and lens of being human.
Women are not made to sit in men’s shadows. We are all made to face towards the light.
Also, I realize that in this specific incidence, it literally isn’t her responsibility to participate. But I still stand by my principles. Us women don’t get to be heard through men. We should be heard through ourselves because we are valid enough. This whole idea thread is why I think gay marriage should be around: to see what gender differences ACTUALLY are, and not just coast along on the traditions of our fathers.
Roy wrote:I wonder if this might be what Elder Bednar is talking about. That marriage is important because it makes the husband a better man and leader than he would be without the influence of his wife.
I’ve heard this stated explicitly by leaders
manytimes over the years. I also agree with DancingCarrot, it comes across as a poor apologetic for a very real problem.
I do want to point out one thing. The focus has been on an 11 and a half minute portion of a much longer meeting. I found a similar meeting with the same cast of characters (in this meeting I couldn’t find where they talk about homosexuals in the church) that still illustrates the point I wanted to make:
[all links go to same video at different points in time]
Sister Bednar kicks off the meeting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=13m07shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=13m07s” class=”bbcode_url”> Sister Núñez de González answers the question of how to maintain mission field habits after the mission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=30m03shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=30m03s” class=”bbcode_url”> Elder Bednar puts Sister Bednar on the spot to answer the question of how to endure to the end when our family is inactive and we feel alone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=36m22shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=36m22s” class=”bbcode_url”> Sister Núñez de González makes more comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=51m58shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=51m58s” class=”bbcode_url”> They briefly captured me on film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h4m25shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h4m25s” class=”bbcode_url”> Sister Bednar talks about an experience of her son leaving for a mission, also says her husband is really good at being direct (subtle jab?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h9m58shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h9m58s” class=”bbcode_url”> Elder Bednar asks Sister Bednar to bear her testimony:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h31m50shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ&t=1h31m50s” class=”bbcode_url”> That’s pretty typical for these intimate meetings where GAs show up, their wives get speaking assignments. That said we’re still in a place where the men have all the authority and are in the position to weigh in on the headier matters. Elder Bednar does dominate the proceedings but he is the one presiding over the meeting and for better or for worse, the reason people’s butts are in the seats.
The whole meeting looked like open mic night, where anyone could jump in with an answer. Plus when Elder Bednar starts down the path of laying down the law on controversial subjects I suspect most everyone is going to be too intimidated to speak up, even when they would be inclined to be supportive of his statements.
At the 54 minute mark you get a bonus where Bednar launches into a long discussion about his interpretation of agency. I believe his interpretation is that the purpose of agency is to obey god, we’ve heard variants of this from him before. I would have settled for a simple “you can choose what you do but you can’t always choose the consequences” but I think hearing Elder Bednar explain how he envisions “agency” gives us some insight into what makes him tick.
P.S. I thought
thisnibbler wrote:I do want to point out one thing. The focus has been on an 11 and a half minute portion of a much longer meeting.
I appreciate your point Nibbler. It can be unfair to draw broad conclusions about a person’s beliefs based upon what they may have said in a particular instance in time.
DancingCarrot wrote:Yes, I understand the importance of doing that in a marriage, but it sure better work both ways. He better do the exact same thing for me, and I better be just as allowed to go out and do things in the world (as I so choose, or don’t choose) as he does.
[As a man talking about gender roles and the differences between men and women I find myself wary of giving opinion on topics where perhaps I shouldn’t. If I say anything that does not conform with your experience then I would appreciate kind correction. I think most can agree that there are differences between men and women. What those differences are and what to do about them is where things get tricky]
I agree with you. I do however have some qualifications.
I believe that in general men have a need for their wife to be their “cheerleader.” I do not know if this need is based on things like brain chemistry or upbringing and societal roles. Supposing that men generally have this need to a greater extent than their wife, it would not be inappropriate for a woman to learn about the needs of her husband and to try to fulfill them. (For example – using the “love languages” as a framework – if your spouse derives value from “words of affirmation” then it would be valuable to try to fill that need.)
If men tend to speak certain love languages (as I believe they do) then it would not be inappropriate to for women to attempt to know and try to fulfill those needs.
However, as you point out, this needs to be a two way street. If the wife is expected to try to meet her husband’s emotional needs then the husband better try to understand and meet the wife’s emotional needs. If some men think that in order to fulfill their emotional needs the wife must subvert herself and not make achievements in her own right then that would be inappropriate.
There also needs to be heavy room for individual adaptation. Not every man or woman is the same and what might fulfill one might be stifling to another.
Perhaps Nancy Reagan really was fulfilled working from behind her husband. Yes, she came of age in a time when that was her expected role but she might have chosen that for herself anyway (hard to know what a person would have done in a different set of circumstances).
However, I also am thinking about Hillary and Bill Clinton. I am by no means holding them up as role models. However, Hillary certainly supported him in his political career and now Bill seems rather content to switch roles and let her take the spotlight while he supports from her shadow.
Nibbler, I appreciated that brief clip of you in the video. Well played.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.