Marcus wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 7:31 pm
Here is a part of the transcript
Bednar is stating that one of many possible "physical limitations" is "an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex." And, paired with his first example, he seems to be implying that "an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex" is similar to or on the same level as, being "born with a body that is not fully functional".
Has Bednar has stated that "an inclination to be attracted to those of the
opposite sex" is also an example of possible "physical limitations," and could be paired with the example of being "born with a body that is not fully functional" ?
Also, on a different note, this from the transcript is disturbing.
[Picks up water bottle and holds above his head]
This is a bottle of water. It's an object. It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. My wife is afraid I'm going to hit her with the bottle of water.
[bolding added.]
No that's not what he's saying at all, if you listen to the entire answer. You are placing a nonsensical interpretation on his words by combing snippets out of context. His argument is not that "same sex attraction" [for clarity, those are scare quotes] is a subset of the class of "physical limitations" -- it's that both SSA and physical limitations are a subset of the class of
challenges that people face in their lives.
Mormonthink presents the entire text of the answer, in which the argument he is making is clear. Here is the argument:
We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh. There are many different types of challenges. Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.
That can be a challenge in the flesh.
Some people have physical limitations: They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.
His answer is being translated into Spanish as he gives it. So, what we actually hear in the part you are focussing on is:
some people have physical limitations [pause for translation] they may be born with a body that is not fully functional [pause for translation] or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.
Watching the clip and listening to his voice, I think it's pretty clear that the last clause is summing up his point that "all of us have different challenges in the flesh." In the next sentence, he changes the subject to free agency.
The transcript was from somebody on Reddit. That somebody had to make decisions about how to turn what was said into a transcript with sentences, punctuation and grammar. Regardless of those choices, reading the entire argument shows that Bednar was giving examples of what he described as "challenges in the flesh."
He returns to this argument later by explaining why he rejected the question he was asked:
So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the Church. It's an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of God and we determine how to respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.
That's the argument, and nothing in it has anything to do with equating SSA as a "physical limitation." Note that he also analogizes SSA to being physically attractive. He sees both as presenting "challenges in the flesh."
That's not to say that his argument is valid or strong. But if you purport to be attacking what he is saying, it is important to first understand what he actually is saying and not something else.
No, Bednar has not described OSA as a "physical limitation." He hasn't done that with SSA either.
As to the last, again, you have to watch the video. His wife is sitting next to him. When he talks about moving the water bottle, he kind of waves it around. He tried to insert a joke about waving the bottle around that (in my opinion) didn't land. You can watch his wife when he's moving the bottle around. She doesn't flinch or look concerned that he's going to hit her. They do have a moment of eye contact, as if she had said on an earlier occasion: hey, watch it when you wave that bottle around. I dunno. The audience laughed. She played it up, pretending to take cover after he said it.