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

[consiglieri]

I am suddenly and forcefully reminded why I stopped reading anything Wade writes.

[Marcus]

Contrast this with the mutually respectful exchanges between Res Ipsa and I. The object lesson being, one reaps what one sows.

Ok.

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

No, I’m not seeing a mutuality of respect. I do agree with your object lesson, however.

[wenglund]

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.

I haven't listened to the talk or the podcast, but my instincts tell me that Wade will be vindicated.

It would be a serious breach of protocol for a modern apostle to provide a clear thesis statement that nails down any position concretely, such that it can be falsified. I would expect the talk to prepare the mind of the listener for confirmation bias, just as Wade indicates. Airy beliefs that prepare soil in nonspecific ways, such that at some unspecified time in the future the listener might reflect back and affirm whatever was in that talk based on whatever happens to be going on at that time in the future.

Anyways, nice to see you back Wade, especially after the tragic loss of Gemli from SeN.

It is good to be back and to reconnect with wonderful people like you. I suspect that I will only be vindicated in the eyes of those who earnestly engage in the learning process as suggested.

I agree with you about the intended product of the alleged "protocol," but not so much what you propose as the purpose behind the "protocol." I had in mind teaching correct principle and letting people govern, and to varying degrees, learn for themselves. And, while there may be confirmation bias, that is unavoidable regardless who is presenting in whichever manner to whatever audience, though the process is designed to minimize that effect.

The role of the Brethren is to teach and testify, whereas the role of the Holy Ghost is to falsify or illuminate as well as convince and convert, grace for grace and grace to grace, by way of the process outlined in Alma 32. This goes well beyond the listener merely reflecting in the future and echoing back what was said, and also includes, metaphorically, growth from seed to maturation, and yielding an abundance of additional fruit--at least this is what I experienced.

Either way, it sure beats the counterproductive and ironically unreasonable outcome of critics presuming to challenge what they clearly do not understand--the blind leading the blind.

Thanks, Wade Englund-

[drumdude]

Either way, it sure beats the counterproductive and ironically unreasonable outcome of critics presuming to challenge what they clearly do not understand--the blind leading the blind.

I encourage you to listen earnestly to the testimony of former Mormon apologists like Consiglieri, The Backyard Professor, and David Bokovoy - Mormon leaders like Bishop Bill Reel, Stake President Tom Phillips, and Area Authority Hans Mattsson.

I would focus on the sincerity of their belief and what they gave to the church they loved for decades of their lives. And try to understand why they left.

Then re-read what you so hastily and thoughtlessly posted here.

[Marcus]

I missed this before, but it ties in handily with the advice given in drumdude’s last comment.

First the falsities:

…presumptuous questions that amount to a false dichotomy ("Is this a pearls before swine moment? Or is it simply the members-nonmembers divide that Mormons think exists?"),

Followed by The Truth:

…particularly when the correct answer had previously been given (i.e. the "somewhat polemic, raucous, and adversarial dynamic" of this venue).

[bolding added.]

Also known as two different opinions.

[wenglund]

No, I’m not seeing a mutuality of respect.

Fair enough. There were other exchanges between Res ipsa and I on this thread that may provide helpful context. Nevertheless, I appreciate you making the effort. I will mark this up as "simply humans who think differently" and disagree,

I do agree with your object lesson, however.

That is progress. I look forward to more of this.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

…I will mark this up as "simply humans who think differently" and disagree…

That is progress indeed! I am proud of you for reaching this level of understanding and I look forward to more of this…

[wenglund]

Either way, it sure beats the counterproductive and ironically unreasonable outcome of critics presuming to challenge what they clearly do not understand--the blind leading the blind.

I encourage you to listen earnestly to the testimony of former Mormon apologists like Consiglieri, The Backyard Professor, and David Bokovoy - Mormon leaders like Bishop Bill Reel, Stake President Tom Phillips, and Area Authority Hans Mattsson.

I would focus on the sincerity of their belief and what they gave to the church they loved for decades of their lives. And try to understand why they left.

Then re-read what you so hastily and thoughtlessly posted here.

That is a good suggestion. As it turns out, I have been an apologist for multiple decades, and I have had long-term acquaintances with several of the good men you mentioned, and I have been quite familiar with their work and stories prior to and even after some of them left the faith. Kerry Shirts (Backyard Professor) and I go way back to the late 90's, when we were co-participants on an email list and at the beginnings of the FAIR organization. I have immense respect and brotherly love for that man even, and perhaps especially, nowadays.

In fact, I was inspired to come back to this board after first listening to a podcast in which Bill Reel (who I knew from the FAIR discussion Board) and RFM (he looked familiar to me, but I didn't catch his real name) were "critiquing" Jared Halverson. This then led to me listening to a YouTube vlog in which Kerry Shirts went into great detail about his journey from childhood, to apologetics, to leaving the church. This, in turn, led me to a vlog in which RFM and Kerry "critiqued" Elder Bednar's talk (Part 1). In one of the two vlogs, or maybe both, they mentioned the DiscussMormonism discussion board. That trigger both fond and unpleasant memories participating here sometime back, and I was intrigued by Kerry's trademark jovial spirit and boundless enthusiasm, and this enticed me to look in and see how he and the board were faring since I left.

Now, while these good men didn't exactly bear their testimonies during the broadcasts, I did get a sense for how they now view the church to which they once belonged. And, I am certainly open to hearing more from them.

I haven't questioned the sincerity of their beliefs. Rather, I am confident that they have always been, and are currently quite sincere and very convinced of their beliefs.

I just happen to believe they are mistaken in their beliefs, and unnecessarily denying themselves many rich and eternal blessings.

I also think they woefully misunderstood Bednar's message. I mention this because it is the relevant aspect of my participation on this thread and the gist of my comment you quoted from me.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

…I will mark this up as "simply humans who think differently" and disagree…

That is progress indeed! I am proud of you for reaching this level of understanding and I look forward to more of this…

Touché!

Thanks, Wade Englund

[drumdude]

unnecessarily denying themselves many rich and eternal blessings.

Is that Mormon doctrine? I've been dying to hear someone explain to me if they are able to redeem themselves in the afterlife or not.

Many prominent Mormon apologists, including DCP, believe in universal salvation. And the question of progression between kingdoms (it seems to me) is only discussed in Elder's quorum and high priest group speculations.

FAIR says "There is no official pronouncement on this question."

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... s_of_glory

Why is such a simple but fundamental question about the plan of salvation inaccessible to these supposed prophets on the earth?