{"id":4007,"date":"2020-08-30T13:30:37","date_gmt":"2020-08-30T20:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/?p=4007"},"modified":"2020-08-30T14:56:25","modified_gmt":"2020-08-30T21:56:25","slug":"what-david-a-bednar-got-wrong-about-eternal-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2020\/08\/30\/what-david-a-bednar-got-wrong-about-eternal-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"What David A. Bednar got wrong about eternal marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the September 2020 issue of The Ensign<\/em>, there\u2019s an article<\/a> entitled \u201cThe Divine Pattern of Eternal Marriage\u201d, written by Elder David A. Bednar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As soon as I saw the article, I knew it\u2019d focus on defending heteronormative marriage as the norm and then outline why other marriages are abnormal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I was right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While he certainly highlights the tired clich\u00e9s used by \u201ctraditional marriage\u201c defenders, such as marriage being ordained of God, he uses a new strategy to justify the homophobic opposition of right-wing Mormons to such initiatives as marriage equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bednar positions heteronormative marriage as innately self-sacrificing, that those within such marriages \u201clos[e] [their] life in service to family or in self-sacrifice for spouse and children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, he frames the \u201cmodern secular concept of marriage\u201d as one that is a \u201ca purely private, contractual model\u201d, one that is \u201ceasily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs of individuals\u201d and \u201cis based on extreme conceptions of personal autonomy and individual rights that elevate one\u2019s own will over God\u2019s will, that opt for personal choice over personal responsibility, and that prioritize the desires of individuals over the needs of spouses and children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He then uses this to lead the reader to this conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this trend, many in our culture could not long resist the call to redefine marriage from the union of man and woman to the union of any two people, regardless of gender. After all, if marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights\u2014rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family\u2014then it becomes very hard to deny marriage\u2014any type of marriage\u2014to any couple or group of people that seek it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

You see, to him, gay marriages (or any marriage that isn\u2019t between a straight and cis man and woman) are\u2014to use the wording of one his colleagues<\/a>\u2014counterfeit, because the only reason anyone would enter into them is a selfish one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To Bednar, two gay people advance in their relationship toward marriage not because their love for each other grows but because their desire for personal autonomy and individual rights intensifies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But there\u2019s one major flaw in Bednar\u2019s argument: one of his premises is wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the crux of his argument<\/p>\n\n\n\n