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

[wenglund]

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.

What is in dispute here is what I had in mind when I mentioned the "high risk of [things] turning counterproductive" and why I thought it "wise not to disclose such things in a less receptive environment."

Since I am the ultimate expert and authority on what I had in mind, then I would know best, if not solely, what was the correct answer to what I had in mind, differing opinions notwithstanding.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[dastardly stem]

No offense to Wade either, but this all comes off as a convenient way to escape meaningful discussion...perhaps to avoid being held accountable for ideas.

Again, no offense taken. I can see how it may reasonably be viewed that way.

However, I can also see that it might be reasonably viewed as intellectual laziness on your part or fear that engaging in the suggested self-learning process might prove you wrong. No offense intended.

Been there and done it, as they say. I stuck it out long enough to even feel some degree of appreciation for what you are describing.

I am fine with each believing what they will. I have utilized the process and been greatly rewarded, and as such I have confidence that others so inclined will experience the same, and that is sufficient in itself. Others may chose or not to do likewise. It is up to them and what they value. My intent here isn't to convert, but rather, as with Elder Bednar and Austin Farrer, to provide an impetus for belief to flourish among those who wish it to be so.

Thanks, Wade Englund-

I don’t think the process to which you refer is a reliable one. And the bill of Mormon claims are unreasonable when viewing the evidence which suggests the inward process that has rewarded you, in whichever way that may be, is quite likely a prolonged case of confirmation bias. But if not I’d be interested in an explanation that demonstrates to one degree or another how the process can be tested.

[Marcus]

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

First the falsities:

Followed by The Truth:

[bolding added.]

Also known as two different opinions.

What is in dispute here is what I had in mind when I mentioned the "high risk of [things] turning counterproductive" and why I thought it "wise not to disclose such things in a less receptive environment."

Since I am “the ultimate expert and authority on what I had in mind, then I would know best, if not solely, what was the correct answer to what I had in mind, differing opinions notwithstanding.

Thanks, Wade Englund

No, there is nothing like that in dispute here because there is what you had in mind, followed by my assessment of what your comment sounded like when you mentioned the "high risk of [things] turning counterproductive" and what it sounded like when you expressed that you “thought it ‘wise not to disclose such things in a less receptive environment.’ “

And since I am “the ultimate expert and authority” on what your statement sounded like to me, “then I would know best, if not solely, what was the correct answer to what” your statement sounded like to me, “differing opinions notwithstanding.”

Now stop giving me such great and spacious openings to correct your presumptions and just converse like a human being, because imitating your atrocious grammar is giving me a headache!

[Moksha]

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?

I appreciate your jovial welcome, but my position hasn't changed over the years except by advancing in the same upward direction. It has been the world that has culturally and otherwise turned upside-down of late. And, I haven't so much escaped as I have learned the art of living in it rather than of it.

As for what spiritual stream of consciousness? Well, as indicated, it was God's Holy Spirit--i.e. the Holy Ghost.

Thanks, Wade Englund

I think I get it. You were the water and Elder Bednar was the tea bag. He infused the Holy Ghost into you.

I think Consiglieri and Kerry were operating under different metaphors. Hey, that's okay, sort of a separate realities thing.

Are you still paddling around in a kayak?

[wenglund]

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.

You misunderstand me. I made no mention of redemption, let alone self-redemption.

Rather, I spoke of blessings, which a person can attain to or deny themselves through faith (or lack thereof) and obedience (or disobedience).

This doctrine is most clearly and succinctly stated here: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20-21)

This comports well with numerous scriptures, including: "The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness" (Ps 18:20); "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Mt 16:27); "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (1 Cor. 3:8; "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward" (Heb 2:2)

In relation to active principle of faith, "A faithful man shall abound with blessings."(Prov 28:20) "Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole." (Mt 9:22); The parable of the talents (Mt 25); "And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." (Lk 7:50); "And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." Lk 18:42); "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." (Act 14:22)

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

I think I get it. You were the water and Elder Bednar was the tea bag. He infused the Holy Ghost into you.

Nope, not even close. But, I appreciate the stab at humor. It made me laugh.

Are you still paddling around in a kayak?

Unfortunately, not near as much as before. I gave my Kayak to my younger brother who has had much closer access to lakes and oceans. He took me out on the water in September (Lake Sammamish in Washington state), and it was a blast. I do miss it.

How about you?

Thanks, Wade Englund

[drumdude]

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.

You misunderstand me. I made no mention of redemption, let alone self-redemption.

Rather, I spoke of blessings, which a person can attain to or deny themselves through faith (or lack thereof) and obedience (or disobedience).

This doctrine is most clearly and succinctly stated here: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20-21)

This comports well with numerous scriptures, including: "The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness" (Ps 18:20); "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Mt 16:27); "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (1 Cor. 3:8; "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward" (Heb 2:2)

In relation to active principle of faith, "A faithful man shall abound with blessings."(Prov 28:20) "Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole." (Mt 9:22); The parable of the talents (Mt 25); "And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." (Lk 7:50); "And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." Lk 18:42); "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." (Act 14:22)

Thanks, Wade Englund

There is plenty of time in eternity to gain these blessings, if they exist. They’re not losing access to anything.

It’s an all you can eat buffet, there’s no need to worry about piling on the shrimp in mortality.

[wenglund]

There is plenty of time in eternity to gain these blessings, if they exist. They’re not losing access to anything.

This assumes that there aren't other eternal limiting factors than length of time. Yet, if one considers that there is plenty of time right now for them to avail themselves of the blessings, and yet they don't, what reason is there to suggest this would change given an eternity of time?

It is not uncommon for them to say that they have never been happier, and that they are better off now that they have rejected that which alleges to bring them great blessings. Seemingly, they prefer their telestial or worldly life and blessings to the terrestrial or celestial life and blessings they once might of had. Why would that change over time, even over an eternity of time?

It’s an all you can eat buffet, there’s no need to worry about piling on the shrimp in mortality.

That is all well and good for those who are hungry, and who don't have other things they prefer to eating, or who can't ever comprehend or don't like what is being served up there at the all-you-can-eat buffet. Maybe they are eternally into telestial cuisine, and prefer it to terrestrial or celestial buffets. Maybe they break out in spiritual hives from eating celestial shrimp.

Besides, even if there were no other eternal limiting factors, and at some point in the distance future of eternity they happen break from their longstanding preference, and somehow choose instead to do what is necessary to avail themselves of the blessings, still they will not have availed themselves of the blessing for a long time before then. To me, that would be an enormous waste, and deeply regrettable, and sufficient motive for me to encourage them not to make that huge mistake. I believe the same even if the time without the blessings is relatively short.

But, that may just be me. Thanks, Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

I suspect that I will only be vindicated in the eyes of those who earnestly engage in the learning process as suggested.

Wow. That's um, a high level of confidence you've got. The fruits of reading talks like Bednar's maybe?

I'd say for myself that I'll only be vindicated if a) I'm right and b) if I'm able to communicate my ideas effectively and of course c) my readers are able to correctly assess my ideas. Sure, my assessors could be wrong, but 2/3s of that equation has to do with me. I've been wrong many times in the past and there's always room for improvement to communicate better. I guess for me, being vindicated on any point is an uphill battle.

It sounds like for you, that you've achieved that godly level of understanding where you're always right about everything, you communicate perfectly, and you can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with you. That really is a lesson the Church teaches and you've got that one down pat.

You might be right that the "teach them correct principles and let them govern" is the glass-half-full version of what I'm talking about. I've always thought of that as a nice libertarian ideal as I myself am a libertarian, although now it does seem to give the teacher an easy out. Well, something to think about.

[High Spy]

I suspect that I will only be vindicated in the eyes of those who earnestly engage in the learning process as suggested.

Wow. That's um, a high level of confidence you've got. The fruits of reading talks like Bednar's maybe?

I'd say for myself that I'll only be vindicated if a) I'm right and b) if I'm able to communicate my ideas effectively and of course c) my readers are able to correctly assess my ideas. Sure, my assessors could be wrong, but 2/3s of that equation has to do with me. I've been wrong many times in the past and there's always room for improvement to communicate better. I guess for me, being vindicated on any point is an uphill battle.

It sounds like for you, that you've achieved that godly level of understanding where you're always right about everything, you communicate perfectly, and you can sit back and the failure is always the reader should they disagree with you. That really is a lesson the Church teaches and you've got that one down pat.

You might be right that the "teach them correct principles and let them govern" is the glass-half-full version of what I'm talking about. I've always thought of that as a nice libertarian ideal as I myself am a libertarian, although now it does seem to give the teacher an easy out. Well, something to think about.

Alas, you are correct.

Vindication on any level

Remains elusive.

But where there’s a will there’s a guy named Bill Reel.

. . .