Anddenex

I hope you realize all your questions, at least most of them, can be turned toward the member and not the bishop as well?
1) Why isn't their a standardized training for members on how to approach leadership with difficult situations? (Because it seems to me that "too often" members use counterproductive and non-Christian methods to talk to the bishop)
2) As members, we all represent Christ (Baptismal covenant), and we should all be people who we can trust. The bishop should be able to trust you the same way you expect trust from him.
3) I don't know of any members in the congregation who are required to learn ways of effective communication with leaders.
4) For instance, there appears to be a tendency for members to blame the bishop's or stake presidents for lack of good communication, then to come in with acceptance and respect of the office they are visiting.
5) With how many different opinions there are as to what is right and wrong communication and how to treat people, the leaders aren't going to get it right every single time. How do you know the bishop hasn't been reading books on good communication, tries it, and the member is still upset?
6) Yes, why aren't members required to take a course on how to communicate with leaders, which will help them to communicate with people who are there to "help" with our final judgement?
In all my experiences in speaking with leaders (bishops and stake presidents) I only had one unfortunate encounter. My percentage of bad encounters would be below 5%. Since that bad encounter, I have never experienced another.
I have also experienced the same people having issues constantly with leaders. The bishop's monthly, will typically meet with the stake president for training. What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve.

Aren't bishops understood to offer spiritual counsel, as led by the Holy Spirit? In other words, members generally know that bishops are not trained in counseling, psychology, or even speech. Leadership are said to feel led by the Holy Spirit to make the spiritual selection of bishops, and these bishops are expected to by likewise led, as they offer spiritual direction.
FYI: Even clergy these days are reticent to offer pastoral or spiritual "counseling." Instead, it gets called "soulcare," or some other purely spiritual word, since some states have allowed for aggressive litigation against churches who offer counseling deemed negligent. I heard of one church that had to spend $30K in legal fees to defend against a lawsuit brought by the family of one who died by suicide. The deceased had gone to the church for counseling one time, and had seen professional counseling, at government expense, for years. Yet, the church was the easy target.  The church won, but it sure didn't feel very victorious.

I assume my state of opposition is the generalization of "many" and "too often" toward bishops.  Yes, there are cases where members are kind, seeking to be meek and humble, trying to be understood and their bishop/stake president doesn't respond very kindly. There are just as many cases, if not more, where the bishop is being kind, meek, honoring the Lord and his prophets through Handbook guidance, and the members take them wrong. I would venture to say, less than 5% of ALL the one-on-one meetings bishops have with members do not end well.  Out of the 50 or more interviews in a month, only 1-3 didn't go as well as both thought it would.
So, we would have disagreement regarding this being a problem; however, would additional training and insight on communication skills be beneficial. Sure, we all could use better social and communication skills. In some cases, I can also see members being more judgemental toward a bishop knowing what training he has received. I can hear the gossip wheel now, "Oh my, you know bishop said this! Yes, he did! AND he even had training on how to be a good communicator."
This is why I shared as my last statement, "What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve."
 
 
 

I would just like to clarify, in case the court thing gets misconstrued, that I have always been a member in good standing, no problems and a member of society in good standing, always too.

Interesting.  Thank you for sharing.  I think Pres. Eyring is such a humble man.

I have had wonderful bishops, mission president, state presidents and other leaders too.  I don't think if a  bishop or a member makes a "mistake" that that makes them a "bad" bishop or a "bad" member.  I just want to clarify here.  It seems that if a person says something on one side of a spectrum (ex.  a bad experience with a bishop) than it is assumed , perhaps, that they would label their bishop as "bad".  I don't think that is a good thing to do.  And that's not what I meant.  But I do think we should have sympathy for anyone, be he or she a bishop, a RS Pres, a regular member who has had an unpleasant encounter that he or she didn't see coming.  I think a counseling session can often have some good moments of respect both ways, even if there is a "glitch" in part of it.  We are all human.  It s just that leaders have a sacred obligation, even more noticeable to others, than others do.  (even though members also have an obligation too)  I just think it is good when the church upholds that standard for leaders to assist them in leading in righteousness.  I am not trying to take away or lessen any responsibility a member has.  Its just that a member may be feeling vulnerable and is going in for help, whereas hopefully, the leader is feeling ready to help at that moment.  I do appreciate my bishop and current and past leaders.  They have helped me & my family in many ways.  Sometimes we just have to forgive, forget, pray, and move on.

My bishop is awesome...  In fact in all my 40+ years (and possibly a hundred bishops [No I do not know the number other then alot]) I have no recollection of a "bad" bishop.

Unless you're thousands of flies on the walls of thousands of bishops all over the world, I suspect you are projecting and assuming things which aren't warranted.  If we were to look at the numbers (which no one is collecting, and therefore no one knows), we'd probably find that for every person who has a complaint about their bishop, there are 500+ people who don't have a complaint about their bishop.  But if one were to go listening to / reading various complaints about bishops, or if one had their own complaint about a bishop, one would probably come away with a skewed idea of those numbers because people who don't complain about their bishop don't generally share their non-complaints, and people with complaints tend to think their experience is the normal one (and that they're in the right and the other party is to blame).
Therefore, I would like to share my non-complaint - my bishop is fabulous; a better person than I am, by far.  And like normal humans, I'm going to assume that all my fellow ward members except one or two, also think our bishop is fabulous!

I hope you realize all your questions, at least most of them, can be turned toward the member and not the bishop as well?
1) Why isn't their a standardized training for members on how to approach leadership with difficult situations? (Because it seems to me that "too often" members use counterproductive and non-Christian methods to talk to the bishop)
2) As members, we all represent Christ (Baptismal covenant), and we should all be people who we can trust. The bishop should be able to trust you the same way you expect trust from him.
3) I don't know of any members in the congregation who are required to learn ways of effective communication with leaders.
4) For instance, there appears to be a tendency for members to blame the bishop's or stake presidents for lack of good communication, then to come in with acceptance and respect of the office they are visiting.
5) With how many different opinions there are as to what is right and wrong communication and how to treat people, the leaders aren't going to get it right every single time. How do you know the bishop hasn't been reading books on good communication, tries it, and the member is still upset?
6) Yes, why aren't members required to take a course on how to communicate with leaders, which will help them to communicate with people who are there to "help" with our final judgement?
In all my experiences in speaking with leaders (bishops and stake presidents) I only had one unfortunate encounter. My percentage of bad encounters would be below 5%. Since that bad encounter, I have never experienced another.
I have also experienced the same people having issues constantly with leaders. The bishop's monthly, will typically meet with the stake president for training. What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve.

I hope you realize all your questions, at least most of them, can be turned toward the member and not the bishop as well?
1) Why isn't their a standardized training for members on how to approach leadership with difficult situations? (Because it seems to me that "too often" members use counterproductive and non-Christian methods to talk to the bishop)
2) As members, we all represent Christ (Baptismal covenant), and we should all be people who we can trust. The bishop should be able to trust you the same way you expect trust from him.
3) I don't know of any members in the congregation who are required to learn ways of effective communication with leaders.
4) For instance, there appears to be a tendency for members to blame the bishop's or stake presidents for lack of good communication, then to come in with acceptance and respect of the office they are visiting.
5) With how many different opinions there are as to what is right and wrong communication and how to treat people, the leaders aren't going to get it right every single time. How do you know the bishop hasn't been reading books on good communication, tries it, and the member is still upset?
6) Yes, why aren't members required to take a course on how to communicate with leaders, which will help them to communicate with people who are there to "help" with our final judgement?
In all my experiences in speaking with leaders (bishops and stake presidents) I only had one unfortunate encounter. My percentage of bad encounters would be below 5%. Since that bad encounter, I have never experienced another.
I have also experienced the same people having issues constantly with leaders. The bishop's monthly, will typically meet with the stake president for training. What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve.

I hope you realize all your questions, at least most of them, can be turned toward the member and not the bishop as well?
1) Why isn't their a standardized training for members on how to approach leadership with difficult situations? (Because it seems to me that "too often" members use counterproductive and non-Christian methods to talk to the bishop)
2) As members, we all represent Christ (Baptismal covenant), and we should all be people who we can trust. The bishop should be able to trust you the same way you expect trust from him.
3) I don't know of any members in the congregation who are required to learn ways of effective communication with leaders.
4) For instance, there appears to be a tendency for members to blame the bishop's or stake presidents for lack of good communication, then to come in with acceptance and respect of the office they are visiting.
5) With how many different opinions there are as to what is right and wrong communication and how to treat people, the leaders aren't going to get it right every single time. How do you know the bishop hasn't been reading books on good communication, tries it, and the member is still upset?
6) Yes, why aren't members required to take a course on how to communicate with leaders, which will help them to communicate with people who are there to "help" with our final judgement?
In all my experiences in speaking with leaders (bishops and stake presidents) I only had one unfortunate encounter. My percentage of bad encounters would be below 5%. Since that bad encounter, I have never experienced another.
I have also experienced the same people having issues constantly with leaders. The bishop's monthly, will typically meet with the stake president for training. What would be nice is if we all exercised more faith, hope, and charity toward those who serve us and those we serve.

A few years ago on the Catholic Answers Forum he and I had quite a few debates about the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. He told me on that forum that he had decided to come back to church. This was a complete shock to me. We had a few conversations and then I didn't here much until Elder Uchdorf's talk. Right after his talk I sent him an email telling him that it sounded very similar to his story. He wrote me right back and confirmed that it was about him. He is a testament to me that anyone can come back to the church. 

Yes, I would invite a tobacco farmer to attend church. I would invite any friend/neighbor to come to church if I wasn't so intimidated by rejection.
Two part question, let me split it up. No, my view would not change regarding the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. If he were a member, then the irony remains. We won't partake of something God has instructed us not to partake of, but we will freely sell it. If I were a close friend I would encourage finding a new profession.

I can only answer for myself, I would hope that I knew God and his love that I would do all he commanded. Nephi, in my opinion, had it easy in comparison to the Israelites were commanded to kill man, woman, and child, and I would hope that I would have the same mind as Nephi also, "Go and do what the Lord commanded." I think, in light of these commands, if we did not have some hesitancy, we are not human nor compassionate. Abraham I am sure wasn't of the mind and heart when commanded to kill Isaac, "Yes, lets get this done." I am sure he had hesitancy, similar to Nephi or to some degree, and yet moved forward because he "knew" God, and he "knew" who had all power.
Yes, me too. I wish I had all the answers to all the conditions and circumstances I have faced, and will face, but I don't. I agree, and there was only a short period of time where our brothers and sisters did live according to a list of do's and don't. All other periods they live as we do.
These are my thoughts pertaining to last paragraph. The situation provided, at least to me, would be different if your friend was LDS or not LDS. If I weren't LDS, I wouldn't have any issue with growing a tobacco farm, why would I? As LDS, now, that is irony. I think it the same irony to see LDS store owners sellings risque magazines in stores and selling alcoholic beverages. Why? It makes money, that is the only reason. So I find this to be a conundrum. We are commanded to not drink alcohol by covenant, but we will sale what we have been commanded not to partake of to others.

@Vort was responding to this particular part of Traveler's response, "Some think that “Christians” should not provide services for a LGBT community event – I am of the other mind – I believe anyone that comes to a believer of Christ – we should accommodate them as we would anyone and everyone else – standing as a witness of Christ."
His examples were relevant to the statement he quoted; although, I would say the the tobacco farmer and casino owner examples aren't relevant (or better said not the greatest example in relation to Traveler's statement), and there wouldn't be anything wrong in praying for someone whether or not we agree with their business. This would be similar, as to my minds eyes, saying, "I wouldn't pray for a lesbian couples child who was sick even if they asked." We would offend God if we did not pray for his little ones.
There is irony though in the following, "no we should not... drive women to abortion clinics, but..." I would, "Attend a homosexuals wedding all day long I would." So you draw the line on "life" and that is a good thing, but you are still supporting sin. It obviously is your choice which sin you support (and by attending their wedding and congratulating the union we do indeed "condone" the sin), but does not make Vorts comment juvenile or irrelevant. These examples were very much relevant to Traveler's mentioned statement. Attending a SSM doesn't make you more compassionate and non-judgemental then someone who chooses not to attend.
The answer to most of the questions would be as such, "if Jesus were here he would not participate in any of those actions and those who would do such things would hear his word and repent quickly of their sinful ways." Anytime our lives are contrary to the will of God it is wisdom that we hear his voice and repent quickly. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In light of compassion and judging, as with anyone who mentions judging, draw your mind to these word, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." Notice God's reprimand is for us to first pull the beam from our own eye in order to see clearly to cast out a mote from thy brother's eye, which requires "judgment" to recognize the "mote" is still there.
Personally, I would love to see Christ live today, and how he would respond, but we can see how the world views the Lord's prophets and servants and if this is the way they view them, they would treat the Master no less, but worse.
 
 

I find your post thoughtful – Would we do all the things on @Vort's list if G-d commanded us?  It was Nephi that said he would go and do what the L-rd commanded – but then it was Nephi that questioned and hesitated when Laban lie drunk in the gutter and Nephi was commanded to kill a completely defenseless Laban.
I do not have all the answers for all the conditions and circumstances I face – let alone what many on this forum face or will face over their lifetime.   My primary effort is to encourage that we as saints live by covenant and not so much by doctrine (doctrine being a list – long or short - of do’s and don’ts).
BTW – when I lived in Maryland I came to know and befriend a tobacco farmer that himself hated smokers and tobacco smoke.   I asked him why he was a tobacco farmer?  His answer was that if he planted corn on his little 20 acres he would make about $5 per acre.  If he planted tobacco he would make about $500 per acre.  He asked what I would do if it multiplied my profet (or income) by 100?
 
The Traveler

@Vort was responding to this particular part of Traveler's response, "Some think that “Christians” should not provide services for a LGBT community event – I am of the other mind – I believe anyone that comes to a believer of Christ – we should accommodate them as we would anyone and everyone else – standing as a witness of Christ."
His examples were relevant to the statement he quoted; although, I would say the the tobacco farmer and casino owner examples aren't relevant (or better said not the greatest example in relation to Traveler's statement), and there wouldn't be anything wrong in praying for someone whether or not we agree with their business. This would be similar, as to my minds eyes, saying, "I wouldn't pray for a lesbian couples child who was sick even if they asked." We would offend God if we did not pray for his little ones.
There is irony though in the following, "no we should not... drive women to abortion clinics, but..." I would, "Attend a homosexuals wedding all day long I would." So you draw the line on "life" and that is a good thing, but you are still supporting sin. It obviously is your choice which sin you support (and by attending their wedding and congratulating the union we do indeed "condone" the sin), but does not make Vorts comment juvenile or irrelevant. These examples were very much relevant to Traveler's mentioned statement. Attending a SSM doesn't make you more compassionate and non-judgemental then someone who chooses not to attend.
The answer to most of the questions would be as such, "if Jesus were here he would not participate in any of those actions and those who would do such things would hear his word and repent quickly of their sinful ways." Anytime our lives are contrary to the will of God it is wisdom that we hear his voice and repent quickly. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In light of compassion and judging, as with anyone who mentions judging, draw your mind to these word, "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye." Notice God's reprimand is for us to first pull the beam from our own eye in order to see clearly to cast out a mote from thy brother's eye, which requires "judgment" to recognize the "mote" is still there.
Personally, I would love to see Christ live today, and how he would respond, but we can see how the world views the Lord's prophets and servants and if this is the way they view them, they would treat the Master no less, but worse.
 
 

Okay, maybe I don't get it because English is not my primary language... but, I don't see anything wrong with this?  I say this a lot.  Like - 
Friend:  "I'm depressed."
Me:  "I'm sorry you feel that way.  Try this wonderful essential oil on your diffuser.  It might help."
Is that bad?
There's also this:
Friend:  "You suck!"
Me:  "I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm just trying to help."
Is that bad?
I do know it can be used for sarcasm too, like -
Friend:  "You suck!"
Me:  "I'm sorry you are too stupid to see how great I am..."
But I'm 100% certain missionaries don't do that.

LP, please take the following as a programmer analyzing linguistics, and not as criticism -- I love you, FP sister!   (My hope is that the linguistic analysis will improve, by way of example, communication between us analytic types and folks like you who come from another angle.)
No one said the sins were the same, they said we want both types of sinners (and, by inference, all the other types of sinners) to come to Christ.
(a) there was no comparison made;  (b) it is not wrong to compare them "because some people seem to believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles".  Literally, what you're saying there is that if a group hold an erroneous belief about A and B, their erroneous belief makes it wrong for another person to make any comparison involving A and B - full stop.  That makes no logical sense, and is a dangerous road to go down - rejecting an option because someone holds an erroneous belief!
It would be perfectly fine to compare homosexuals and pedophiles if the comparison itself is a logically valid one (regardless of anyone's belief).  It would be entirely wrong to compare them if the comparison itself is logically invalid (again, regardless of anyone's belief).
I think what you mean to say is that it's wrong to equate them (equating things is very different from comparing them).  This is true not because some people erroneously believe they equate, but because they factually do not equate - it's not the belief which makes it wrong, it's the factual error which makes it wrong.
Further, you're showing a tendency to think that because some people erroneously equate these two types, that anyone who mentions them in the same sentence might also equate these two types, regardless of whether there's linguistic evidence of equating.  I think you should watch out for that - suggested with the most friendly of feelings - if you disagree that this is a thought-pattern to avoid, I respect your choice.
(For the record, I didn't understand @Vort's comment because I agree with him; I understand Vort's comment because I'm a programmer1 and he and I speak the same language void of assumptions not evident in the words themselves - and as the above linguistic analysis should show, I assume the literal meaning of the words people use is what they intend, but sometimes find that the literal meaning is probably not be what they meant (but with Vort, the literal meaning is (almost?) always what he means).)
1As evidenced by my ability to nest parentheses without forgetting to close any...

To answer your question—offhand I can think of two or three who I’ve worked with in my law practice, and at least two more I’ve met via the LDS addiction recovery program.  Could probably remember a few more, if I thought about it a little longer.  I’ve also done a couple of continuing ed conferences where multiple sessions were geared towards sex offenders—how (we think, maybe) they are created, how they think, how they find victims, how they rationalize their acts, how they struggled against their darker impulses before finally giving in—that featured numerous interviews with convicts.  To the extent that such sessions are organized by law enforcement agencies, they are often designed to evoke suspicion and outrage and loathing.  But what I tend to take away from such presentations is pity, sadness, and a sense of the sheer tragedy of one of our Father’s children doing this to another of His children.  It would be easier to write these guys off as unmitigated monsters—but I just can’t, no matter how much grief and horror I feel for their victims.  No wonder Enoch refused to be comforted.
By the way, some studies done in the late 1990s suggest as many as 5% of men may be inclined towards pedophilia—for men (but not for women), pedophilia may be nearly as common as homosexuality.  In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that statistically speaking every LDS ward has two or three gays.  Okay; but every LDS ward probably has at least one pedophile as well.  Like gays, they don’t stop existing just because we choose not to think about them.  Like gays—they suffer.
With regard to “it’s not the same”—to be sure, they are not the same in every respect; but in certain respects—a verboten need for a certain sort of physical relationship, the spectre of ongoing social marginalization and opprobrium, the substantial failure of modern psychotherapy to permanently “cure” them, and long-term loneliness and despair and depression and, too often, suicide—there are key similarities.  They are even more important in the current milieu, because (as I said earlier) activist gays have made a lot of hay out of the notion that no one else in Mormondom (or in life, for that matter) has had to suffer as they have suffered—a notion that the plight of pedophiles in our society illustrates as being demonstrably false.
The proposition that the risk of confusion/conflation between disparate groups means that comparisons should never be made, strikes me as intellectually counterproductive.  Surely no serious academic would (or should!) decline to compare Mormonism to henotheism, or Arianism, just because we Mormons find it offensive to be lumped together with heretics?

The article, IMHO, was shortsighted (as it can be seen as embracing sin, rather than rejecting sin); although, the intention was good. Do we want to deny people (sons and daughters of God) the opportunity to come unto Christ? The obvious answer, no. Do we want to be accepting of people who have a desire to come unto Christ by exercising their faith unto repentance? The obvious answer, yes. Do we want to be accepting of people with divers temptations, but are honestly seeking God's will in their lives. The obvious answer, yes.
The Church welcomes any and all who desire to come unto Christ, or as Elder Holland said, "With divine imperatives of love and faith, repentance and compassion, honesty and forgiveness, there is room in this choir for all who wish to be there. “Come as you are,” a loving Father says to each of us, but He adds, “Don’t plan to stay as you are.” We smile and remember that God is determined to make of us more than we thought we could be." (Source)
Elder Bednar shared this statement, "First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh...Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon," when he was once asked, "How can homosexual members of the Church live and remain steadfast in the gospel"?
I have loved his response. We are not defined by our "sins." We are defined by our spiritual natures, as sons and daughters of God, and that through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with the ability to overcome. The gospel of Jesus Christ accepts all. God accepts all. He accepts some into the Telestial kingdom, some into the Terrestrial kingdom, and some into the Celestial kingdom. It is our personal choice where we want to be in the end, God will accept us "the way we have become." If a person wants to come to Church as a visitor, let they come and be respectful. If they want to come in order to accept the atonement of Jesus Christ, and to exercise their faith unto repentance, we welcome them also with open arms.
If a person wants to come and seeks to poison the well, "Homosexuality is not a sin, we are beautiful the way we are," (or any other challenge as given by Elder Bednar) and desires to change the Church from within, then please remain where you are in the great and spacious building -- it is welcoming of all manner of sin (sin is beautiful there).  This reminds me of the TED talk given by a Millenial Mormon who believed that in time the Church would change its doctrine as the younger generation of Millenials becomes leaders of the Church (a teaching truly from the adversary). If doctrine can change so easily then sadly the Church is not true; fortunately, the Church is true and will be a North Star to all who want to come unto Christ and be saved.

I don't think anyone is saying they don't want sinners (whatever the sin) at church.  I think they're saying they want them at church to pursue following scripture.  To that end, I don't think we need to tiptoe around the fact that the person sitting next to you is a sinner, regardless what their sin is, just so they don't feel bad.  While I don't see the need to call out individuals, I certainly think it appropriate to call out sin.  
 

The article, IMHO, was shortsighted (as it can be seen as embracing sin, rather than rejecting sin); although, the intention was good. Do we want to deny people (sons and daughters of God) the opportunity to come unto Christ? The obvious answer, no. Do we want to be accepting of people who have a desire to come unto Christ by exercising their faith unto repentance? The obvious answer, yes. Do we want to be accepting of people with divers temptations, but are honestly seeking God's will in their lives. The obvious answer, yes.
The Church welcomes any and all who desire to come unto Christ, or as Elder Holland said, "With divine imperatives of love and faith, repentance and compassion, honesty and forgiveness, there is room in this choir for all who wish to be there. “Come as you are,” a loving Father says to each of us, but He adds, “Don’t plan to stay as you are.” We smile and remember that God is determined to make of us more than we thought we could be." (Source)
Elder Bednar shared this statement, "First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh...Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon," when he was once asked, "How can homosexual members of the Church live and remain steadfast in the gospel"?
I have loved his response. We are not defined by our "sins." We are defined by our spiritual natures, as sons and daughters of God, and that through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with the ability to overcome. The gospel of Jesus Christ accepts all. God accepts all. He accepts some into the Telestial kingdom, some into the Terrestrial kingdom, and some into the Celestial kingdom. It is our personal choice where we want to be in the end, God will accept us "the way we have become." If a person wants to come to Church as a visitor, let they come and be respectful. If they want to come in order to accept the atonement of Jesus Christ, and to exercise their faith unto repentance, we welcome them also with open arms.
If a person wants to come and seeks to poison the well, "Homosexuality is not a sin, we are beautiful the way we are," (or any other challenge as given by Elder Bednar) and desires to change the Church from within, then please remain where you are in the great and spacious building -- it is welcoming of all manner of sin (sin is beautiful there).  This reminds me of the TED talk given by a Millenial Mormon who believed that in time the Church would change its doctrine as the younger generation of Millenials becomes leaders of the Church (a teaching truly from the adversary). If doctrine can change so easily then sadly the Church is not true; fortunately, the Church is true and will be a North Star to all who want to come unto Christ and be saved.

You seem to be saying that some comparisons are, by their very nature, off limits. You appear to believe that it is intrinsically morally wrong to say that homosexuality is a sin, just like pedophilia is a sin. I disagree.
(Also, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.)
A sinner is a sinner, and a pedophile who controls himself is no more sinful than a homosexual who controls himself. That is the only relevant point. Should we, or should we not, invite the pedophile to Church? Yes or no? I can only assume that you agree the answer is a loud, resounding "YES!"
Why, then, did the author mention homosexuality but not pedophilia? Why wasn't he courageous enough to bring up a less popular and less fashionable moral perversion? Are we to believe that he was really going for "acceptance of the sinful" as his theme? Or was he using the article to show how unprejudiced he was, and how he graciously condescended to lecture all the other sinners in the Church on their sinful natures?
We do not -- or at least should not -- use preaching the gospel as a chance to show off our own (perceived) moral superiority. The author spends the entire article talking about "we" and "us", how "we" need to change "our" attitude. I guess he has a mouse in his pocket, because his complaints bear little resemblance to me or to the Saints I know. I have never heard anyone complain about a member or visitor who had tattoos or who smelled like cigarettes. My experience says that his complaints are hollow. Perhaps the author should confine himself to publicly berating his own foolishness and insincerity rather than presuming to lecture everyone else on what he (wrongly) perceives to be their shortcomings. The hypocrisy is insufferable.
And I appreciate that. Thank you. You can perhaps understand my frustration when you consider that you have a history of misunderstanding what I write. This seems to happen along a common line: You read into my words certain negative meanings that simply are not there. It's frustrating.
Actually, I should be (and in my better moments, I am) glad that you voice these things, since it gives me a chance to disclaim them. Nevertheless, I am confident that you would quickly find it tiresome if I replied to many of your posts by writing, for example, "So it sounds like you're claiming that all men should be lined up and shot, and boys permanently enslaved to women for all time. Do I take your meaning correctly?" I imagine after a few times of answering, "No, of course not! How could you ever get such a meaning from what I wrote?", you'd get tired of defending yourself from (what seem to you to be) obviously spurious charges of hate-ism.
You've said that you found it objectionable, because you think it taps into some underlying vein of false prejudice against homosexuals. You have not explained why the analogy is invalid or otherwise "poor", just that you dislike it.
Partially. I primarily dislike the article because I perceive it as hypocritical. The author takes the Saints to task for not being friendly and accepting enough of those who are "different", while his entire article is a screed against those very Saints. His paragraphs on homosexuals are particularly telling:
So we should not judge homosexuals for their homosexuality, but it's okay for the author to classify another Latter-day Saint as being a "self-righteous snoot" and to pass judgment that some sins (like not having the right attitude, where "right" means "like the author's") are "inexcusable".
Seriously, what a hypocrite.
Consider his last paragraphs:
Does the author exemplify the attitude he claims we should follow? Or is he simply looking to put up points on the Politically Correct scoreboard?
Let the author write the same article, but talk about pedophiles (whose sinful nature is widely despised) rather than homosexuals (whose sinful nature is widely celebrated). Then I might have more of a tendency to believe him to be sincere.

I'll not argue this point, because it's personal perspective. However, I would ask you (and the personality psychologist) to reflect. Is this really true? Are LDS members dramatically closed, unaccepting and disagreeable? Are Protestant lay-members?  I hear a lot of frustration directed at a society that demands our obeisance to its immoral consensus, but very little rejection of individual LBGT folk.