NOM

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am**

Not too long ago I was invited to meet David Bednar and hear him speak. It wasn't a one on one meeting, just a friend of mine making an introduction and us shaking hands. He makes the rounds in my area of the country, so this isn't the first time I've seen him. A few years ago when I was still doing the calling thing, I had to spend two days with him, so I'm not sure the motivation behind getting me out to see him. I guess the belief is that apostles are magic and that something would happen in his presence.

That's fine. I don't mind.

Listening to his talk helped me work a couple of things out that I've been thinking about. I've recognized in myself a deep seated need to harmonize people. That doesn't mean I shy away from conflict, quite the opposite, but it's got to be constructive. A part of my personal faith is that there's very little difference between human beings in that we all feel the same emotions and are all the same essential biology. Therefore we have a built in commonality which can be used to build a basis for understanding. We won't always agree, but if we maintain an acknowledgement of our common humanity, then it won't degenerate into hatred and factionalism.

But the thing about constructive conversations is that it requires both parties to put forth some sort of effort in order to uncover those commonalities. Sometimes it takes time and patience to build up enough goodwill and trust with another person before they will open up to the point you can engage their humanity.

The first thing I've recognized in David Bednar's teachings are that they are pure, meaning that they don't allow for nuance or complexity. Every claim of Mormonism is literal fact and history has unfolded exactly as we've been told in our Sunday school lessons. Covenants are literal contracts with a celestial being that cannot be broken, only violated, and that we should shutter in fear and terror every day of our lives lest we fail to live up to our obligations. In spite of the fact that he's well traveled and has visited with people of all cultures and walks of life, this hasn't made the slightest dent in his belief that Mormonism is the one and only absolute truth existing in the earth. Other things might be good, but Mormonism is the only authorized power and therefore most important. There is no organization more essential and no cause greater than that of the church. He's a true believer, 100%.

After listening to him, really listening to him, I realized that there are certain ideologies which cannot be penetrated, that there are some people who will not and cannot ever cooperate in that conversation to discover our commonalities. David Bednar is the pure ideal, the archetype, the very form of what it is to be a believer without any doubt. He has ascended to a place beyond reach or communication, and for me that's a very sobering thought.

I know this won't resonate with everyone, but coming face to face with the reality that some people cannot be reached is earth shattering. The fact that he's working day and night as hard as he can to make as many others just like himself is even more upsetting. Imagine that. He's out there everyday trying to wipe away every doubt and every commonality a person may have to the outside world, all while declaring his work "good". I feel powerless to confront something like this, to really engage with an effort that seems hell bent on making the world more divided and factional. It helped me really put my finger on why I never felt at home in the church, and why that feeling of alienation has grown with its increasing clannishness and gate keeping.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:14 am**

OD....just read your post with interest. It does resonate with me, and it's sad that DB exhibits those types of characteristics. He's rigid, unyielding and inaccessible. He is one of those people who I see as a "control freak", but justifies himself in the name of the religion. Oh, he might not come right out and say or act like that, but it's all a science to him--a routine that requires conformity and compliance, yielding to the higher power he espouses where everyone either bows their head and says yes, or they will be punished until they do.

Bednar is right!; God said it, he believes it, and that settles it. And there will be no 2-way communication. You do what he says and you thank him and God for the chance.
-----------------------

In a prior post, I mentioned an experience I had with a book (I think it was "Increase in Learning"). In that book, DB talked about how JC would always look outside of himself, always giving to others, especially in times of personal crisis. The thing that bothered me was DB pushed that idea so far to an extreme that JC often gave outside of himself in a way that seemed self-destructive. If I were to adopt the principles Bednar espoused to teach my children, for example, I would be guilty of child abuse. One astute reader of my prior post mentioned that Bednar seems to have a distinction problem: rather than trying to help us become more like Jesus, his expectation is that we BE Jesus himself.

Anyway, would you consider David Bednar and Bruce McConkie similar? I have read stories that Bruce was a bully--he did things in the name of his position that were wrong.

And here is the most important question: do you see David Bednar as someone who would be able to cry with someone who is crying? Does he have the capacity to plug into people's feelings and weep with them? From what you've said, it sounds like this is an area he could use a little work.

PS. In some ways I am very much like you with trying to understand people. I believe that all of us have wounds inside--we are human and its part of our condition. I also believe you don't really know someone--not really at a deep level--until you are able to see their wounds. This requires IMMENSE trust, and is, IMHO, one of the most intimate and sacred experiences that there really is. In my experience with people, it takes empathy to an extreme to know how to be careful when and if someone allows you to know their wounds.

I am also of the opinion that empathy--the type that really connects with others--comes from those internal wounds. For example, I know what it feels like to sit in a room with 500 people I know, and feel utterly alone. I've experienced that for extended periods of time. Because of that, in that way, I know what a gay brother may feel like to sit in a church meeting where they are talking about "eternal family", and be sick in his stomach. In that situation,..I AM ABLE to cry with that brother. I actually have a friend in this situation and I have cried with him, more than once.

I'm of the opinion that love transcends, or at least SHOULD transcend all. The church pits "Obedience" over and above "love". Chris said that ALL the commandments and prophets hang on love. Bednar would say ALL the commandments and prophets hang on OBEDIENCE--even if it prevents people from being human and having wounds in the first place.

Just my opinion.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:02 am**

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:14 am Anyway, would you consider David Bednar and Bruce McConkie similar? I have read stories that Bruce was a bully--he did things in the name of his position that were wrong.

And here is the most important question: do you see David Bednar as someone who would be able to cry with someone who is crying? Does he have the capacity to plug into people's feelings and weep with them? From what you've said, it sounds like this is an area he could use a little work.

PS. In some ways I am very much like you with trying to understand people. I believe that all of us have wounds inside--we are human and its part of our condition. I also believe you don't really know someone--not really at a deep level--until you are able to see their wounds. This requires IMMENSE trust, and is, IMHO, one of the most intimate and sacred experiences that there really is. In my experience with people, it takes empathy to an extreme to know how to be careful when and if someone allows you to know their wounds.

Maybe I need to remember that David Bednar is a person that can't be known, at least not by someone like me. The impression I get from his public speeches and the way I've observed him interact with his wife and children, is that he takes the duty of being an example very seriously. Maybe his wife has seen his wounds, and possibly his children indirectly, but I doubt he'd ever allow that sort of vulnerability outside of family or possibly other apostles. That, more than anything, is what makes him seem so aloof and idyllic. If you can't get close, then you can't see the flaws. It helps to maintain the image of perfection, even when we all know that such a thing is impossible.

It must be an incredibly isolating existence, but I mean that in an empathetic way and not pity. He chose this life for himself, and I imagine, it's something he's wanted for a very long time.

The problem then is not him as a man, but in the example he's setting. He reminds me in spirit and demeanor of the what I was taught to be in my youth. We were told to project perfection, because showing our sins could lead others astray, and to approach God with extreme fear and trembling. I didn't fully understand this until I was an adult, but God terrified me, and I was terrified of every moment of my life that I was already lost and doomed. Now I can look back as a parent and accept that I was actually a good kid, and the mental torture I put myself through was in no small part to this sort of ideology. When you project perfection and hide your fear, then you wall yourself off from being known. When people are afraid to speak to one another in an authentic way, then they have no idea that others are suffering as much as they are. The only relationships they can form is with the church.

I wouldn't describe David Bednar as a McConkie. Yes, they share some similarities, but McConkie was more open an aggressive about using his own personal scholarship as a bludgeon against his definitions of the unorthodox. Bednar's approach isn't overly cerebral in that he's not trying to engage with your reason. Instead, he states church doctrine clearly, plainly, and as an unassailable fact which requires no explanation or defense. To defend this or that doctrine would be as ridiculous as having to prove that people need oxygen to breath. These things just "are" and are beyond any question or inquiry. He spreads his teachings, I think, from a sincere place of love because he fears God and the afterlife probably more than any of us. Because that fear drives him, he seeks to instill it within others to drive them, because I think he honestly feels that some sort of hell fire awaits us all and he wants to minimize our punishments. This is why he encourages such strict obedience and rigor. God will have his pound of flesh, so we need to be scrupulous not to run afoul of his plans.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:02 am**

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:02 am ... because he fears God and the afterlife probably more than any of us. Because that fear drives him, he seeks to instill it within others to drive them, because I think he honestly feels that some sort of hell fire awaits us all and he wants to minimize our punishments. This is why he encourages such strict obedience and rigor. God will have his pound of flesh, so we need to be scrupulous not to run afoul of his plans.

One of the reasons I can no longer associate with the LDS faith is because of what you have outlined here. I'm the guy who smites his chest and cries out: "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

I read Grant Palmer's last book, the first half devoted to the Christian God, and the Mormon God. The Mormon God, as Palmer states, is, to be frank, frightening. He DOES demand (and he will have) his pound of flesh.

I've been a parent, and I know that fear can change behavior, but at what cost? Desire and love take longer, but they also don't destroy little souls in the process. I wonder if Bednar has any idea that his approach reenthrones the conflict many Mormon's have between grace and obedience. I'm leaning on the grace side of things...you know?

Stephen Robinson's book Believing Christ is one of the few books I think was worth the read back in my TBM days. I confess that Bednar's books went in the trash can.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:16 am**

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am A part of my personal faith is that there's very little difference between human beings in that we all feel the same emotions and are all the same essential biology. Therefore we have a built in commonality which can be used to build a basis for understanding. We won't always agree, but if we maintain an acknowledgement of our common humanity, then it won't degenerate into hatred and factionalism.

This is so beautiful! I love this!

So this last GC when Bednar was talking I started staring at his hair. It was unnaturally perfect. Then my train of thought went like this: Wow that's a wig. No that can't be a wig; it's like a hair robot. No Bednar is a robot. No, he is a cyborg like on Archer! What if there were a cyborg Elder Bednar character on Archer! That would be the best ever!!!

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am After listening to him, really listening to him, I realized that there are certain ideologies which cannot be penetrated, that there are some people who will not and cannot ever cooperate in that conversation to discover our commonalities. David Bednar is the pure ideal, the archetype, the very form of what it is to be a believer without any doubt. He has ascended to a place beyond reach or communication, and for me that's a very sobering thought.

And this is the sad reality to my stupid daydream. He will stand for his beliefs before he stands for the humanity of others or even himself. He is like an emotional cyborg.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:53 pm**

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am After listening to him, really listening to him, I realized that there are certain ideologies which cannot be penetrated, that there are some people who will not and cannot ever cooperate in that conversation to discover our commonalities. David Bednar is the pure ideal, the archetype, the very form of what it is to be a believer without any doubt. He has ascended to a place beyond reach or communication, and for me that's a very sobering thought.

It sounds like Dave Bednar is the Platonic ideal of a 21st century LDS apostle. This does not grant a lot of empathy or ability to relay profound doctrine. It does make for a reliable leader of the institutional LDS church, not necessarily for an evangelist of the Grace of Jesus Christ.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:11 pm**

One more vote that he's a robot with synthetic hair.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:13 pm**

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am After listening to him, really listening to him, I realized that there are certain ideologies which cannot be penetrated, that there are some people who will not and cannot ever cooperate in that conversation to discover our commonalities. David Bednar is the pure ideal, the archetype, the very form of what it is to be a believer without any doubt. He has ascended to a place beyond reach or communication, and for me that's a very sobering thought.
I know this won't resonate with everyone, but coming face to face with the reality that some people cannot be reached is earth shattering. The fact that he's working day and night as hard as he can to make as many others just like himself is even more upsetting. Imagine that. He's out there everyday trying to wipe away every doubt and every commonality a person may have to the outside world, all while declaring his work "good". I feel powerless to confront something like this, to really engage with an effort that seems hell bent on making the world more divided and factional. It helped me really put my finger on why I never felt at home in the church, and why that feeling of alienation has grown with its increasing clannishness and gate keeping.

This description was really good, I think. It inspired me to make a new avatar pic!

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:24 pm**

BriansThoughtMirror wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:13 pm This description was really good, I think. It inspired me to make a new avatar pic!

It's stunning.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:31 pm**

MoPag wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:16 am
oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:57 am
So this last GC when Bednar was talking I started staring at his hair. It was unnaturally perfect. Then my train of thought went like this: Wow that's a wig. No that can't be a wig; it's like a hair robot. No Bednar is a robot. No, he is a cyborg like on Archer! What if there were a cyborg Elder Bednar character on Archer! That would be the best ever!!!

This internal dialogue was the best-so funny!

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:46 pm**

This thread has reminded me a great deal of Covey's Seven Habits.
In the area of human communications one cannot truly empathize with another until they are prepared to temporarily set aside their own issues and listen with their heart to the others' issues. The problem here as Covey describes it is that you open yourself to being effected by what the other individual is saying. Your opinion of your own claimed territory might actually change. You might look for new or un-thought-of solutions.

This is UNTENABLE to an absolutist. It cannot be accepted when you already have all of the answers. The only issue can be that the OTHER individual hasn't perfectly implimented the obvious answer.

Thus the need for a hero to show them the way. The ONLY way...

Regarding Mr. Bednar as setting an example:

I learned something a few years back about the church. I used to hear it all the time. "Be careful, you have to set a good example."

It's one thing to be concerned about setting a good example. It's quite another to BE an example of goodness.

I find myself watching people who are intrinsically good. They spiritually draw you to them without their realizing it. We trust them implicitly.

People who SET perfect examples actually and unknowingly repel us by their EXPECTATION that we should follow them......perfectly.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:08 pm**

I recognized long ago that there are a lot of people and topics for which people really cannot be reasoned with. There are some topics for which it gets hard to get people to reason on, no matter the topic. There are some people that are hard to reason with, pretty much no matter the topic. And then there are many mixtures in between. I like to think that I've had pretty good success finding common ground and interesting discussion on a broad range of topics. But, not with everybody and not on all topics. Some people are just so certain that there is no way to meet them in the middle because they acknowledge no middle.

It's a little like the recent uproar over John Kelly's comments that the American Civil War could have been avoided if only there had been a willingness to compromise. (See John Kelly’s Bizarre Mythology of the Civil War.) There were plenty of compromises that enabled slavery to continue, including the 3/5 compromise. In the end, the only compromise the South would accept was total capitulation, which they nearly got, before they just decided to abandon all attempts at compromise and attempt to secede. I'm unclear on what Kelly really intended, but it also doesn't seem to me that further compromises to allow slavery to continue were really the best approach for our country or society.

I've seen many times, that sometimes people simply won't accept any other consideration, in spite of the evidence. It's very apparent in religious areas, but it's also quite common in general. Before the internet was publicly available I used to read an online forum concerned with Urban Legends and Folklore. It was always interesting to see how much people clung to some of these ideas, in spite of all the evidence. Years ago, I met someone in a copy shop copying requests to send get-well cards to Craig Shergold. I tried explaining to her that Shergold had recovered and really didn't want any more cards, but she insisted he needed more. I tried suggesting she research it a bit before sending on the cards or requests, but her actions made her feel good and she was committed to sticking to it.

In the realm of religion, this pattern becomes particularly common. When someone can only know something based upon how they feel about it, there is a tendency to be more committed to it and particularly to be more irrationally committed. Getting back to the Stages of Faith stuff, those in Stage 5 will be more interested in compromising, discussing, or considering. Stage 3 folks will tend to see stuff in a pretty binary, my way or wrong, style.

I would expect Mormons to be predominately Stage 3. I expect that even more from Church leaders, especially at the top of the chain. I think Bednar is a particularly clear example of it, but I expect his colleagues are all pretty much the same.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am**

Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/u ... 40x300.jpg

Moderator edit: This post was reported by a group member as in violation of NOM rules. I did not remove the link but I deleted the [IMG] command.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:56 am**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

Great. Now I have another weird fetish I have to keep secret. Not cool man.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:15 am**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

Great, now I'll be up all night with that in my head.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:04 am**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/u ... 40x300.jpg

This is both the funniest and most terrifying thing I have seen in a long time.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:44 am**

RedRyder. This is the most frightening thing I have EVER SEEN on this site.

<<chill to my core!>>

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:30 am**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

http://zelphontheshelf.com/wp-content/u ... 40x300.jpg

Okay-Best. Prank. Ever.

You know how sometimes during GC talks they will show random pictures? Please someone hack into the conference center control room and put this up during his next talk!!!

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:35 am**

MoPag wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:30 am Okay-Best. Prank. Ever.

You know how sometimes during GC talks they will show random pictures? Please someone hack into the conference center control room and put this up during his next talk!!!

That would certainly cause some excitement. I learned in conference that Elder Bednar has some rock hard abs and come hither eyes. He must do crunches during scripture study.

Posted: **Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:09 pm**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:46 am Let's just say insomnia and E. Bednar posts just don't mix. I'll just drop this right here.

Really wish you hadn't done this...........

NOM

What I learned from David Bednar

What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar

Re: What I learned from David Bednar