Ok, implying you were being irrational was probably a little harsh. What I meant was that if you were really trying to understand Elder Bednar's intent in his statement (and that's really all that matters) I don't see how you could have come to the conclusions you did. Maybe you'll enlighten me.
And I'm sorry for the insulting assessment of your opinion on the "stand" statement. I'm still new to the forums and trying to get a handle on who I'm working with here.
Ok, so one of the opinions that you seem to be espousing that I don't understand is the idea that Elder Bednar's statements somehow insinuate that he has claim to special powers under the atonement as an apostle. You seem to be saying this here:
I'm inferring that what DB states as limited to the 'Lord's-annointed' is self aggrandizement and expresses exclusivity with "God" and his superiority in the ranks.
And when you agree with this statement here:
It sounds to me like he's saying something like a GA has extra capabilities beyond what an ordinary mortal has because of the atonement and if not for that he couldn't stand in conference as an authority.
And I have to say I've been sitting here twisting his words this way and that and I haven't been able to come up with how that idea could be derived from Elder Bednar's words. When he says that it is the atonement that got him where he is today how does that preclude us from doing the same thing?
I think one thing you have to understand is that the church adamantly teaches that being an apostle is no better than being a nursury leader if you do it with full faith and righteousness. And I know serveral church leaders personally and they honestly and sincerely beleive that. Leadership is not a priveledge but is a calling like any other given to someone for a variety of reasons. Now obviously a base level of faith would be required for someone to receive a leadership calling since they're responsible for counseling others and making decisions based on the promptings of the spirit but they're not necessarily any more righteous than a sunday school teacher. So where Elder Bednar is standing isn't any better than where any of us are standing, but he is obviously on the path that the Lord wants him to be on (in his opinion of course) so where he's standing is better than the alternative.
I'm not sure but I think the misunderstanding may lie in the fact that when Elder Bednar says that its because of the atonement that he's an apostle today it doesn't (in my mind) mean that that's the only factor. In other words he's not saying that some special part of the atonement not available to others got him there. Obviously it was through the atonement that he was able to follow the usual path of repentance and faith that helped him grow as a disciple of Christ, but it was God's personal plan for him that lead to his call. Without either of these things he wouldn't be where he is today. Just like none of us would be where we are today without the atonement. I know I wouldn't. I'd most likely be dead, for several reasons. Anyone can tap into that power and that's made abundantly clear by other statements by church leaders.
If you still think his statement somehow refers to a special "apostles only" aspect of the atonement, please explain to me why that is the case. But I'm pretty sure the context necessary to understand the true intent of Eldar Bednar's statement is in the paragraphs above.
And please, prejudice, discrimination, and "the ultimate insult" are pretty harsh words to use under the circumstances. I suspect our disagreement on this issue is one of semantics.
First off, of course there are aspects of the atonement available to all people, namely the prospect of a physical ressurection, the assurance that we will live forever, and the forgiveness "original sin" and sins committed unknowingly. I think that covers all of it.
But the particular blessing of the atonement I was referring to, the ability to repent of one's sins and grow to become more like Christ, while obviously "available" to all (here's the semantics issue) it is clearly only applicable to sincere Christians by definition. This aspect of the atonement is contigent on our taking steps to accept Christ's offerings. These steps would obviously only be taken by a sincere Christian since others wouldn't even beleive it exists. This is not only LDS doctrine but is consistent with the beleifs of all Christians sects that I'm aware of. I don't know your personal religious beleifs, but if you disagree with these statements, its probably because you are attributing to them more than is intended.
I'll admit I wasn't clear in distinguishing "forgiveness of sins" from "development of charity" through the atonement. In fact I definitely should have written it differently. As described above foregiveness of sins can be aquired by sincere Christians through the atonement but our potential to be imbued with charity and faith through Christ is available in degrees to all people. Though it's available in its full power to beleiving Christians who understand where that power comes from.
You seemed to also think that the very idea that our charity and faith comes from Christ is a misrepresentation of Christ's teachings. I'm not going to derail this by getting into a scriptural debate but once again, this is a beleif that's fairly common in Christianity generally. You are certainly entitled to disagree. I'm just informing you of the context in which Eldar Bednar was speaking.
Sorry for the length of the post. Hope this helps.