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

[wenglund]

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

Metaphorically, it is not so much a matter of sports as it was a matter of agriculture. Planting of seeds helps by enabling growth that may produce an abundance of fruit.

Why must we be mistaken that these are thesis statements?

To me, the way the talk is structured and how it unfolds makes that evident. As several here have noted, the body of the talk doesn't rightly support the supposed thesis statements. Given that Bednar is an accomplished academic, it is fair to assume that were he to have intended them as thesis statements, he would have supported them. He didn't, and so it is fair to assume they weren't intended as such.

Furthermore, Bednar's use of Alma 32, among other things, suggests another intent.

And, If you have watched many of Bednar's presentations to youth and church educators, you may have noticed that they are often designed to instruct the audience on HOW to think and learn, rather than on WHAT to think and learn. The talk in question seems to me to fit well that pattern.

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.

That is just it. Bednar's intent wasn't to justify or support his claims. Obviously. Rather, it was to get the audience to do that for themselves, on their own.

Again, in RFM's attempted critique, he made the astute point that reasonable critical analysis requires adequate understanding of what is being critiqued. Unfortunately for RFM and Kerry and several here, their mistaken assumption that Bednar's talk was a thesis or argument, unwittingly prevented them from adequately understanding his actual intent, thereby inadvertently rendering their criticism as unreasonable. Ironically, the critics have, themselves, ended up supporting Bednar's claims.

It is a thing of exquisite beauty. Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

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.

That is a wonderful question, and I very much appreciate your civil and thought-provoking approach. It has been a blessing.

I have provided multiple hints in my responses above, but to answer your question directly, Bednar's talk prompted in me a remarkable edifying and Holy Ghost assisted stream of spiritual consciousness that has left me marveling at the insights and understanding. I believe this is precisely what Bednar intended. And, he did so in a way that for those not yet ready and able to receive such insights and understanding would not be burdened by responsibility attendant thereto, which may be more than they can bear. In short, Bednar taught in the Savior's way, the Master's way, which in multiple respects is masterful.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[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.

That is a wonderful question, and I very much appreciate your civil and thought-provoking approach. It has been a blessing.

I have provided multiple hints in my responses above, but to answer your question directly, Bednar's talk prompted in me a remarkable edifying and Holy Ghost assisted stream of spiritual consciousness that has left me marveling at the insights and understanding. I believe this is precisely what Bednar intended. And, he did so in a way that for those not yet ready and able to receive such insights and understanding would not be burdened by responsibility attendant thereto, which may be more than they can bear. In short, Bednar taught in the Savior's way, the Master's way, which in multiple respects is masterful.

Thanks, Wade Englund

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you described the talk as masterful because of the personal effect it had on you and your belief that Bednar intended the talk to have that effect. Can you articulate the insights and understanding you received from reading and viewing the talk?

[dastardly stem]

That is just it. Bednar's intent wasn't to justify or support his claims. Obviously. Rather, it was to get the audience to do that for themselves, on their own.

Again, in RFM's attempted critique, he made the astute point that reasonable critical analysis requires adequate understanding of what is being critiqued. Unfortunately for RFM and Kerry and several here, their mistaken assumption that Bednar's talk was a thesis or argument, unwittingly prevented them from adequately understanding his actual intent, thereby inadvertently rendering their criticism as unreasonable. Ironically, the critics have, themselves, ended up supporting Bednar's claims.

It is a thing of exquisite beauty. Thanks, Wade Englund

That sounds like some sweet irony that must make you feel good.... or is there some confirmation bias in there? What were Bednar's claims in regards to RFM and BYP and other posters here? Did they or anyone else critique his talks and say it's unreasonable to have faith in Christ or believe in the restoration? I figured Bednar's contention was simply that its unreasonable to think it unreasonable to believe the claims of Mormonism.

[consiglieri]

Given that Bednar is an accomplished academic,

Would this be the same “accomplished academic” who committed plagiarism in his last general conference talk?

[dastardly stem]

Given that Bednar is an accomplished academic,

Would this be the same “accomplished academic” who committed plagiarism in his last general conference talk?

Yep. That guy. his plagiarism didn't take away his Burlington Northern Foundation Award for Excellence in Teaching. Nor his 2 Outstanding Teacher Award in the College of Business Administration. but ya know. Plagiarism doesn't look good.

[consiglieri]

I’m sure Elder Bednar did not intend plagiarism as a thesis statement.

[wenglund]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you described the talk as masterful because of the personal effect it had on you and your belief that Bednar intended the talk to have that effect.

That is one of multiple ways I viewed the talk as masterful.

Can you articulate the insights and understanding you received from reading and viewing the talk?

It is encouraging and interesting that you would ask. Last night I composed in my head a rather lengthy post intended to disclose several of the insights and understandings. However, when I woke up this morning it occurred to me that posting such things, particularly in this venue (given its somewhat polemic, raucous, and adversarial dynamic), was at high risk of turning counterproductive, and that it would work best for those interested to personally employ Alma 32 in relation to the talk (as Bednar intended), and learn for themselves as I did. This, in itself was one of the insights--i.e. had Elder Bednar been prompted that it was wise to disclose such things in a highly receptive venue, he would have done so, but decided otherwise, and thus it would seem even more wise not to disclose such things in a less receptive environment.

What I do feel comfortable disclosing is the insight that while, like many here, I initially considered the talk to be a thesis or argumentative in nature, and began approaching it with that errant framework in mind, the stream of spiritual consciousness corrected that mistaken notion and enlightened my mind as to what Bednar was really about. And, by extension, I could share that insight with others here so that they could correct and gain accurate understand if they were so inclined.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

Would this be the same “accomplished academic” who committed plagiarism in his last general conference talk?

I can't answer your serial irrelevant question since I am unaware of the allegation, or whether it has any valid basis, or the credibility of those supposedly rendering judgement, among other things.

Thanks, Wade

[Moksha]

I have provided multiple hints in my responses above, but to answer your question directly, Bednar's talk prompted in me a remarkable edifying and Holy Ghost assisted stream of spiritual consciousness that has left me marveling at the insights and understanding. I believe this is precisely what Bednar intended.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Wade, it is good to see you have escaped that glacial crevasse after being trapped upside down for all these years. What spiritual stream of consciousness did you channel from Elder Bednar's talk?