Bednar claims the church is growing and vibrant

[I Have Questions]

Lol, nor me! I'm still traumatized by that 45 second video of him holding a young boy by force, in a full body clench from behind (to imitate satan's hold or something) in the middle of a roundtable discussion. The boy was visibly distraught, with tears running down his face. His parents were sitting in the circle, watching it happen.

in my opinion, Bednar doesn't have a good handle on appropriate public interactions.

OMG. I haven't seen that. It sounds... really uncomfortable.

I haven't seen enough of him to judge, but the interaction you describe sounds pretty cringe.

Take a look...

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ?rdt=59850

[Res Ipsa]

Can you answer my question?

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.

It couldn’t be any clearer than this.

So, that''s a hard no. You won't answer.

[Res Ipsa]

OMG. I haven't seen that. It sounds... really uncomfortable.

I haven't seen enough of him to judge, but the interaction you describe sounds pretty cringe.

Take a look...

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ?rdt=59850

Yeah, cringe.

[Marcus]

So, there are three pauses in the translation video. One interpretation is to group the first two together, another interpretation is to group the second two together.

Given what is known about bednar's style and his previous statements, in my opinion he is stating that SSA is also a 'physical limitation,' and is a second example of such, along with a non-fully functional body.

Later in the same speech he emphasizes marriage is only intended to be between a man and a woman, which in my opinion reinforces that he considers SSA to be a physical limitation, like having a body that isn't fully functional. I don't think he means it is just a 'challenge,' like being good-looking.

[MG 2.0]

Take a look...

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ?rdt=59850

Yeah, cringe.

Cringe over what?

THAT was an excellent object lesson for that young man and the others that were in attendance and online.

Wonderful.

You may have noticed that this young man was a bit emotional from the very start and Elder Bednar treated him with respect and dignity. It’s difficult for a young person to be in the spotlight and Elder Bednar treated him appropriately.

You guys are over the top.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

So, there are three pauses in the translation video. One interpretation is to group the first two together, another interpretation is to group the second two together.

Given what is known about bednar's style and his previous statements, in my opinion he is stating that SSA is also a 'physical limitation,' and is a second example of such, along with a non-fully functional body.

Later in the same speech he emphasizes marriage is only intended to be between a man and a woman, which in my opinion reinforces that he considers SSA to be a physical limitation, like having a body that isn't fully functional. I don't think he means it is just a 'challenge,' like being good-looking.

The problem I continue to have with your interpretation is that it is non-sensical. if SSA is a "limitation," then the absence of that limitation would be sexual attraction to both sexes. But that's clearly not what Bednar believes. If one is serious about understanding someone else's words, one must avoid interpreting them in a way that is nonsensical. It gets worse when you add the word "physical limitation." What is the physical thing that is being limited? Again, nonsensical.

I agree that there is a choice in interpretation, but your "what is known about Bednar's style and previous statements" is just a fancy way to describe bias.

To go from "God intends marriage to be only between a man and a woman" to "single sex attraction is a physical limitation" is a non sequitur. He also states that gender (by which he actually means sex) is eternal. So it applies to our spirit forms before we had physical bodies.

But, let's play it out your way. Let's make up some biology that would make calling SSA a "physical limitation" reasonable. Like, maybe, the body physically creates both SSA and OSA, but OSA is so strong that most people don't experience SSA. But in some people, there is some kind of limit on whatever creates OSA, so SSA can be described as a "physical limitation," Therefore, what? Does Bednar claim it is a sin to have a physical limitation? Is he condemning blind people? Is he judging someone who is born with only one arm? Make Bedar's argument that you think he's making: SSA is a physical limitation. Therefore .....

Maybe we could move on from straining at gnats and get to the camels in Bednar's response.

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, cringe.

Cringe over what?

THAT was an excellent object lesson for that young man and the others that were in attendance and online.

Wonderful.

You may have noticed that this young man was a bit emotional from the very start and Elder Bednar treated him with respect and dignity. It’s difficult for a young person to be in the spotlight and Elder Bednar treated him appropriately.

You guys are over the top.

Regards,
MG

Dude, you are whack. The kid asked a question about how to get back in the habit of reading the scriptures. It clearly wasn't a question for a friend -- he was talking about himself. He was crying throughout because he was scared and embarrassed.

Bednar never even tried to answer the question. All he did was threaten him with being unable to escape the grasp of the devil if he didn't read his scriptures. To the kid, Bednar was a representative of God. Bednar summoned him down. The kid had not choice but to obey an authority figure with God's authority. He ignored the signals that the kid was giving him. He didn't ask the kid's premission to touch him, let alone physically restrain him.

I take back whack. I replace it with sick.

[Marcus]

So, there are three pauses in the translation video. One interpretation is to group the first two together, another interpretation is to group the second two together.

Given what is known about bednar's style and his previous statements, in my opinion he is stating that SSA is also a 'physical limitation,' and is a second example of such, along with a non-fully functional body.

Later in the same speech he emphasizes marriage is only intended to be between a man and a woman, which in my opinion reinforces that he considers SSA to be a physical limitation, like having a body that isn't fully functional. I don't think he means it is just a 'challenge,' like being good-looking.

The problem I continue to have with your interpretation is that it is non-sensical. if SSA is a "limitation," then the absence of that limitation would be sexual attraction to both sexes. But that's clearly not what Bednar believes. If one is serious about understanding someone else's words, one must avoid interpreting them in a way that is nonsensical. It gets worse when you add the word "physical limitation." What is the physical thing that is being limited? Again, nonsensical...

I do believe Bednar's interpretation of the situation is nonsensical. That point has been made numerous times in evaluations of his words.

You are asking people to give the most generous, reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful interpretation to words spoken by a man who has clearly shown that he does not think in a reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful way.

[Res Ipsa]

The problem I continue to have with your interpretation is that it is non-sensical. if SSA is a "limitation," then the absence of that limitation would be sexual attraction to both sexes. But that's clearly not what Bednar believes. If one is serious about understanding someone else's words, one must avoid interpreting them in a way that is nonsensical. It gets worse when you add the word "physical limitation." What is the physical thing that is being limited? Again, nonsensical...

I do believe Bednar's interpretation of the situation is nonsensical. That point has been made numerous times in evaluations of his words.

You are asking people to give the most generous, reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful interpretation to words spoken by a man who has clearly shown that he does not think in a reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful way.

That's begging the question. You don't know what Bednar's interpretation of the language we've been looking at actually is. Neither do I. But your belief that Bednar's "interpretation of the situation" (whatever that means) is not a reason to interpret his words in a nonsensical way when the words can be interpreted in a sensible manner that is consistent with his overall argument. "That point has been made" is, again, fancied up bias. So is your special pleading that Bednar somehow deserves different treatment when we are doing our best to interpret what he said.

But you skipped over the part where I assumed you were right and asked you to fill in the "therefore."

[Marcus]

I do believe Bednar's interpretation of the situation is nonsensical. That point has been made numerous times in evaluations of his words.

You are asking people to give the most generous, reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful interpretation to words spoken by a man who has clearly shown that he does not think in a reasonable, intelligent, and thoughtful way.

That's begging the question...

No, it is not.