Bednar claims the church is growing and vibrant

[drumdude]

Just my 2 cents ref Bednar equating SSA to a disability - I thought that’s what he meant; it seemed clear to me.

- Doc

Yes, me too. Especially given his previous comments and stance.

I think this is the important thing Res is missing.

Bednar's comments were not made in a vacuum. They were made to an audience who understands full well the total context with which they were made, the history of other comments leaders have made, and the unspoken interplay between all of it.

Res is technically correct, but only because the church is very effective at couching their language to publicly say one thing while privately insinuating another. The dog whistle that "there are no homosexuals in the church" was heard loudly by those with ears to hear, and it wasn't the message Res says it was on face value alone.

I do appreciate Res for keeping everyone honest, because he is still correct that Bednar didn't explicitly say what everyone implicitly heard him saying.

[I Have Questions]

I do appreciate Res for keeping everyone honest, because he is still correct that Bednar didn't explicitly say what everyone implicitly heard him saying.

No, he's not correct. Here's what Bednar said:

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 more explicit.

[I Have Questions]

Awww bless.
I think the meaning of that isn’t complicated. He’s clearly saying that being attracted to the same sex is akin to having a body that is not fully functional. It’s right there. It could not be any clearer.

Can you give me a reasonable alternative way of interpreting what Bednar said in what I’ve quoted?

I have. Repeatedly. But I’ve considered all of what he said to avoid taking them out of context.

But just take your own description of “akin to.” If by “akin to” you mean shares some characteristic that Bednar finds meaningful, I’d agree. But that still leaves us worth the question “what was the shared characteristic that Bednar was referring to?” At a minimum, whatever you claim it is, you should be able to show how it fits into his entire answer in a consistent way. Based on the totality of his answer, I think what he sees as the “akin” features is that they both fit in his broad category as “challenges.” Likewise, so does his example of physical attractiveness. They are all asking to one another because they are examples of challenges that are part and parcel of being mortal humans.

The practical problem with the interpretation you are arguing for is that it makes no sense in the context of Bednar’s entire answer. If Bednar argued that people who have physical limitations of any kind were sinners, or were less human, or deserved lesser treatment, then I think your interpretation would for just fine in his argument. Physicals limitations are sin, SSA is a physical limitation, therefore SSA is sin.

But Bednar’s argument doesn’t disparate people with physical limitations in any way. How does view them? Challenges. Just like physical attractiveness. So even if we use your interpretation, you simply can’t get to anything like gay people are bad or sinners or less than human using Bednar’s argument.

The principle of generous interpretation has nothing to do with being nice or rewarding someone we think of as good. It’s a tool to help us avoid confirmation bias when we interpret someone else’s word. It’s the best tool I know of to avoid the strawman fallacy, which if nothing else prevents me from looking like a disingenuous moron.

The other, which I can’t use here, would be to take the summary of his argument that I wrote upthread and ask him if my summary was fair and accurate. Unless I can understand his argument well enough to state it in a way he agrees is reasonable, the odds are very good that when I launch a counter argument I’ll trip over my own feet and look like an idiot. More importantly, I’ll have blown the chance to persuade anybody.

So that’s my interpretation. Physical attractiveness is akin to physical limitations is akin to SSA because they are examples of challenges that we are all faced with in life. Being faced with a challenge is not sin.

That’s it.

Bednar is saying, quite clearly, that being naturally attracted to a person of the same sex is as physically limiting as being born blind, or deaf, or limbless. I'll quote him again...

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 clearer than that.

I hope you enjoyed the clip. I thought the line “It’s hard to change people’s minds” summing up all the frenetic chaos that preceded it was a good fit with the thread.

Highly ironic that you would post it though

[Res Ipsa]

The irony is absolutely intentional.

Look, you've yet again isolated a small piece of a long answer and repeated your claim that it's clear. If you're going to ignore context, there's really nothing more to discuss.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, me too. Especially given his previous comments and stance.

I think this is the important thing Res is missing.

Bednar's comments were not made in a vacuum. They were made to an audience who understands full well the total context with which they were made, the history of other comments leaders have made, and the unspoken interplay between all of it.

Res is technically correct, but only because the church is very effective at couching their language to publicly say one thing while privately insinuating another. The dog whistle that "there are no homosexuals in the church" was heard loudly by those with ears to hear, and it wasn't the message Res says it was on face value alone.

I do appreciate Res for keeping everyone honest, because he is still correct that Bednar didn't explicitly say what everyone implicitly heard him saying.

Yes. My comments were directed to the argument Bednar actually made in his answer. I have no idea whether he believes what he says. I think it's interesting because it takes a different approach than many of those past statements you refer to. I simply disagree that "there are not homosexuals in the church" is a dogwhistle. I think it's an attempt to defend the effect of the church's doctrine on marriage and extra-marital sex on gay folks in a way that avoids the historical "homosexuality is a sin" approach.

I thought the Wheat and Tares article framed the damage to identity that I was criticizing in a much better way than I did. The use of person-first language or identity first language has been a significant topic of discussion in the context of "disabilities." But the discussion goes beyond that. The term "people of color" is a deliberate move to person-first language from identity-first language. In general, best practice is to use whichever language that the people one is describing prefer.

Because gay folks have formed an identity around that common characteristic, "gay person" is appropriate -- not "person with SSA." But I think Bednar goes further in not just using person-first language; he denies the identity and asserts that we all have only one identity.

Because we were talking about gay folks, I didn't even notice that Bednar used "sons and daughters of God." The effect of that on trans or other nonbinary folks is just as bad int terms of denying their identity.

[I Have Questions]

The irony is absolutely intentional.

Look, you've yet again isolated a small piece of a long answer and repeated your claim that it's clear. If you're going to ignore context, there's really nothing more to discuss.

It’s an explicit, self contained comment. Read it.

[Res Ipsa]

The irony is absolutely intentional.

Look, you've yet again isolated a small piece of a long answer and repeated your claim that it's clear. If you're going to ignore context, there's really nothing more to discuss.

It’s an explicit, self contained comment. Read it.

It's easy to claim something is self-contained when you refuse to look at the context.

[I Have Questions]

It’s an explicit, self contained comment. Read it.

It's easy to claim something is self-contained when you refuse to look at the context.

The context doesn't change the explicit language and equivalence of his comment that I've quoted.

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.

He's equating same sex attraction as a physical limitation in the same way that having no legs or being blind or being deaf are physical limitations. What he should be equating it with is opposite sex attraction. But he doesn't. So you can apply all the perceived context you like. It doesn't change what he does in that very clear, very explicit, statement.

A person robs a bank. Does the context that he's just lost his job and is about to be evicted from his home with his wife and kids change the explicit fact that he robbed a bank?

[Res Ipsa]

It's easy to claim something is self-contained when you refuse to look at the context.

The context doesn't change the explicit language and equivalence of his comment that I've quoted.

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.

He's equating same sex attraction as a physical limitation in the same way that having no legs or being blind or being deaf are physical limitations. What he should be equating it with is opposite sex attraction. But he doesn't. So you can apply all the perceived context you like. It doesn't change what he does in that very clear, very explicit, statement.

A person robs a bank. Does the context that he's just lost his job and is about to be evicted from his home with his wife and kids change the explicit fact that he robbed a bank?

Your analogy simply assumes away the reason for a dispute. You start with stating the conclusion "A man robs a bank." By doing so, you've removed yourself from your role as an interpreter. I'll illustrate using your example:

IHQ: A man robbed a bank.

RI: How do you know that.

IHQ: Watch this video clip.

Video clip from what appears to be from a security camera shows a person in a ski mask walking up to a bank teller and giving him a note. The teller nods at the man, takes money out of a drawer, puts it an envelope, and slides it to the person. The man walks away and leaves the field of the camera.

IHQ: He robbed the bank. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: Did you watch what came before and after on the video?

IHQ: I don't have to. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: You always have to check for context.

IHQ: Context is irrelevant. It's a self-contained even documented on camera. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: I'm going to check context before reaching a conclusion.

The start of a video shows a woman talking to two men, appearing to be giving them instructions. She walks out of the field of view. One man puts on a ski mask and walks out of view. The other walks out of view, then then back in behind a counter.

The part of the video described above then plays.

Finally, the woman, both men, and several other people enter the field of view. The woman talks to the assembled people, and there is what appears to be a question and answer session. The group laughs as the man who was wearing the ski mask shows that the envelope is full of newspaper clippings.

RI: When you look at the context, the man didn't rob the bank.

IHQ: He clearly did. The video shows it. It's a self contained event on the video.

RI: You can't tell whether or not an event is "self-contained" without considering the context.

We are talking about a long answer Bednar gave to a question. The evidence is a video tape. Because the answer is being translated, the entire answer is in the form [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase]. Bednar does not say "paragraph" or "period" or "comma" or "semi-colon." Just like the example above, you have arbitrarily picked a couple of phrases and claimed they are clear and self contained without ever considering what came before and after.

[I Have Questions]

The context doesn't change the explicit language and equivalence of his comment that I've quoted.
He's equating same sex attraction as a physical limitation in the same way that having no legs or being blind or being deaf are physical limitations. What he should be equating it with is opposite sex attraction. But he doesn't. So you can apply all the perceived context you like. It doesn't change what he does in that very clear, very explicit, statement.

A person robs a bank. Does the context that he's just lost his job and is about to be evicted from his home with his wife and kids change the explicit fact that he robbed a bank?

Your analogy simply assumes away the reason for a dispute. You start with stating the conclusion "A man robs a bank." By doing so, you've removed yourself from your role as an interpreter. I'll illustrate using your example:

IHQ: A man robbed a bank.

RI: How do you know that.

IHQ: Watch this video clip.

Video clip from what appears to be from a security camera shows a person in a ski mask walking up to a bank teller and giving him a note. The teller nods at the man, takes money out of a drawer, puts it an envelope, and slides it to the person. The man walks away and leaves the field of the camera.

IHQ: He robbed the bank. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: Did you watch what came before and after on the video?

IHQ: I don't have to. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: You always have to check for context.

IHQ: Context is irrelevant. It's a self-contained even documented on camera. It couldn't be clearer.

RI: I'm going to check context before reaching a conclusion.

The start of a video shows a woman talking to two men, appearing to be giving them instructions. She walks out of the field of view. One man puts on a ski mask and walks out of view. The other walks out of view, then then back in behind a counter.

The part of the video described above then plays.

Finally, the woman, both men, and several other people enter the field of view. The woman talks to the assembled people, and there is what appears to be a question and answer session. The group laughs as the man who was wearing the ski mask shows that the envelope is full of newspaper clippings.

RI: When you look at the context, the man didn't rob the bank.

IHQ: He clearly did. The video shows it. It's a self contained event on the video.

RI: You can't tell whether or not an event is "self-contained" without considering the context.

We are talking about a long answer Bednar gave to a question. The evidence is a video tape. Because the answer is being translated, the entire answer is in the form [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase] [Pause for translation] [Phrase]. Bednar does not say "paragraph" or "period" or "comma" or "semi-colon." Just like the example above, you have arbitrarily picked a couple of phrases and claimed they are clear and self contained without ever considering what came before and after.

Well no, in the scenario with the bank robber, the wider context is that the person’s done it before. They’ve got form. Context is important, right?