Radio Free Mormon & Backyard Professor Take Elder David A. Bednar to the Limit

[Res Ipsa]

I read the transcripts Wade linked to. I didn't think the talk was confusing, although Part 2 seemed more like a repetition of the second part of Part 1 than anything else. I thought Bednar stated his thesis clearly in this quote from Part 2:

I will briefly review the basic context and a few key points from part 1. My primary theme is quite straightforward: namely, that it is unreasonable to claim that faith in Jesus Christ is unreasonable and that the basic arguments used by our contemporary critics have not changed much since the days of the Book of Mormon prophets.

I didn't think he supported either half of his thesis very well. He never defines unreasonable, and seems to equivocate on what it means when applied to his religious belief and when it applies to critics. He never comes close to supporting the second, simply relying on an enormous straw man from a couple of sentences attributed to Korihor. He discusses in detail certain core doctrines of LDS theology, yet never gets around to explaining why it is not unreasonable to believe in them.

Putting RFM's criticisms aside, Wade, do you think Bednar's talk supported his thesis?

[wenglund]

Wade, can we at least agree that Bednar needs to lighten up a little bit?

To me, the more light, the better.

Thanks, Wade

[wenglund]

Putting RFM's criticisms aside, Wade, do you think Bednar's talk supported his thesis?

I am going through the talks and the critique step by step, and I just finished Part 1 introduction of each. Maybe later tonight I will do a quick read through of both parts and let you know.

From past experience, I suspect that the notion of coming to know things by other means than sight, and the generalizable principle inherit therein, is critical to Bednar's thesis and accurate comprehension thereof. We'll see.

I do appreciate you input. Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

Putting RFM's criticisms aside, Wade, do you think Bednar's talk supported his thesis?

Now that I have listened to and read all of Elder Bednar's first talk, it is my understanding that it would be a serious mistake to consider it to be a thesis paper, a scholarly treatise, or a counterargument to church criticism, or the like.

Instead, it was an apostolic planting of seeds of faith, with the invitation for each individual listening to then test, on their own, the reasonableness of the five doctrinal truths (with additional doctrinal truths to be given later) using the method outlined in Alma 32.

What some of us mistook for thesis statements, were simply declarations of beliefs intended to prepare the soil of the heart, mind, and soul, into which the seeds of faith were planted.

The preparation was done in such a way as to contrast the method Bednar proposed the audience use as a test of reasonableness as compared with how the critics of the past and present propose to test the same.

So, to somewhat answer your question, Res Ipsa, I believe Bednar's talk supported his intent masterfully, at least to those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

No doubt critics of the church, including RFM and perhaps Kerry (I haven't yet heard enough of his vlog to yet say), will see it differently, but I believe this may be due in large part to their seeming penchant for misunderstanding church leaders and apologist alike. They seem not to have a clue what Bednar was really about. The lack of spiritual light doesn't help.

Ironically, from what I can tell so far, through their lack of accurate comprehension, the crtics have falsely judged Bednar as unreasonable, and in doing so they have inadvertently demonstrated their own unreasonableness, thus confirming one of Bednar's preparatory declarations of belief. Funny that.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Rivendale]

Putting RFM's criticisms aside, Wade, do you think Bednar's talk supported his thesis?

Now that I have listened to and read all of Elder Bednar's first talk, it is my understanding that it would be a serious mistake to consider it to be a thesis paper, a scholarly treatise, or a counterargument to church criticism, or the like.

Instead, it was an apostolic planting of seeds of faith, with the invitation for each individual listening to then test, on their own, the reasonableness of the five doctrinal truths (with additional doctrinal truths to be given later) using the method outlined in Alma 32.

What some of us mistook for thesis statements, were simply declarations of beliefs intended to prepare the soil of the heart, mind, and soul, into which the seeds of faith were planted.

The preparation was done in such a way as to contrast the method Bednar proposed the audience use as a test of reasonableness as compared with how the critics of the past and present propose to test the same.

So, to somewhat answer your question, Res Ipsa, I believe Bednar's talk supported his intent masterfully, at least to those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

No doubt critics of the church, including RFM and perhaps Kerry (I haven't yet heard enough of his vlog to yet say), will see it differently, but I believe this may be due in large part to their seeming penchant for misunderstanding church leaders and apologist alike. They seem not to have a clue what Bednar was really about. The lack of spiritual light doesn't help.

Ironically, from what I can tell so far, through their lack of accurate comprehension, the crtics have falsely judged Bednar as unreasonable, and in doing so they have inadvertently demonstrated their own unreasonableness, thus confirming one of Bednar's preparatory declarations of belief. Funny that.

Thanks, Wade Englund

And how in this wild wild world of sports is this helpful to anybody?

[consiglieri]

Putting RFM's criticisms aside, Wade, do you think Bednar's talk supported his thesis?

What some of us mistook for thesis statements, were simply declarations of beliefs intended to prepare the soil of the heart, mind, and soul, into which the seeds of faith were planted.


Thanks, Wade Englund

Why must we be mistaken that these are thesis statements?

[dastardly stem]

Ironically, from what I can tell so far, through their lack of accurate comprehension, the crtics have falsely judged Bednar as unreasonable, and in doing so they have inadvertently demonstrated their own unreasonableness, thus confirming one of Bednar's preparatory declarations of belief. Funny that.

What does Bednar think is unreasonable or reasonable for that matter? I saw him say "I believe it is unreasonable to claim that faith in Jesus Christ is unreasonable.”

But I don't see him attempt to justify his claim here. Nor any of his claims of reasonable or unreasonable.

It seems to me all he really wanted to do was make young people feel good that an old wise apostle thinks it's reasonable to have faith in Jesus Christ, mock unbelievers a little as to embolden these younger folks, dismiss traditional Christian belief to some extent, and get these young folks excited about the great depth and wisdom of LDS teaching. Or and testify he knows its true because he thinks its true.

Too bad in his attempt to be all devotional he made a few claims that he left basically unsupported.

[Philo Sofee]

dastardly Stem
Too bad in his attempt to be all devotional he made a few claims that he left basically unsupported.

And unreasonable...

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Wade. As I am not a person of faith, I’d be the first to admit that I am not the intended audience for the devotional talk. But I grew up as a faithful member of the church, so I have been a person of faith.

What was it about the talks that made them masterful, as opposed to merely adequate or even poor? As someone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, what did you see and hear that led you to conclude that the talk was masterful?

Thanks.