Elderbednarophobia

[San Juan Sun]

Probably right. Upon further review, the quote isn't even that bad.

If it wasn't a bit of hyperbole being used to make a point, then yes, it is very bad.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I've been willing to give Bednar a pass because:

- it's an uncited quote
- it was 15 years ago

But I think it's amusing that people are trying to write this off as completely out of context (or completely made up). I've heard this sentiment expressed over the pulpit (with scriptural backing) for the last 20 years. In fact, as a missionary I used the "to be learned is good when you hearken to the counsels of God" rationale to dismiss the reasons educated investigators rejected our message.

For reasons deserved and undeserved, this thread is becoming about Sooner. That's fine, you guys can hash out that all out here. But when we want to discuss the idea of rejecting scientific knowledge if it doesn't square with church teachings, I think that would be an interesting discussion.

I think it would be equally boring.

[Blueintheface]

I've been willing to give Bednar a pass because:

- it's an uncited quote
- it was 15 years ago

But I think it's amusing that people are trying to write this off as completely out of context (or completely made up). I've heard this sentiment expressed over the pulpit (with scriptural backing) for the last 20 years. In fact, as a missionary I used the "to be learned is good when you hearken to the counsels of God" rationale to dismiss the reasons educated investigators rejected our message.

For reasons deserved and undeserved, this thread is becoming about Sooner. That's fine, you guys can hash out that all out here. But when we want to discuss the idea of rejecting scientific knowledge if it doesn't square with church teachings, I think that would be an interesting discussion.

I think the deserved outweigh the undeserved. One man's opinion.

Sooner, if your answer to my post contains another mention of gay rights, bigotry, or ethnic discrimination I just might send you my phone number via PM.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I've been willing to give Bednar a pass because:

- it's an uncited quote
- it was 15 years ago

But I think it's amusing that people are trying to write this off as completely out of context (or completely made up). I've heard this sentiment expressed over the pulpit (with scriptural backing) for the last 20 years. In fact, as a missionary I used the "to be learned is good when you hearken to the counsels of God" rationale to dismiss the reasons educated investigators rejected our message.

For reasons deserved and undeserved, this thread is becoming about Sooner. That's fine, you guys can hash out that all out here. But when we want to discuss the idea of rejecting scientific knowledge if it doesn't square with church teachings, I think that would be an interesting discussion.

And if this anti-education thing is such a core LDS belief, I expect that BYU will be dismantled soon. Darn it.

[kccougar]

Please read this quote from Elder Bednar and then tell me why I shouldn't be afraid of him:

Anything I know, anything I've learned, anything I've come to understand about the processes of organizing, or learning, or influencing are grounded in the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now I've studied at some good universities but I've never learned anything from books or scholars that has had an impact on what I do in my service in the church or in my family, not a thing.
[...]
I think it's very important that we have the proper perspective. The gospel informs our scholarship, our scholarship does not inform the gospel. And when we lose sight of that perspective then I think we're headed for trouble, so would you please just keep in mind we view scholarship in a discipline through the lens of the gospel, we do not view the gospel through the lens of scholarship.
And if we maintain that perceptive then indeed we'll be fine...

You need to stop stealing your stuff directly from exmormon reddit. Let me know when you (or the guy you ripped this from) finds the source of the quote in its entirety.

[San Juan Sun]

And if this anti-education thing is such a core LDS belief, I expect that BYU will be dismantled soon. Darn it.

We need a straw man smiley.

[YOhio]

If the church is so anti-science then why does it always say stuff like "The Glory of God is Intelligence."? I'd love to see SU and Sooner try to explain that one away.

[wally]

It's from a talk given at BYU-Idaho. I'm working on getting the full text for more context.

These are definitely his words though.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the REAL reason that Sooner is so afraid of Bednar is that they aren't related. You will notice that he has never stated that he was afraid of Kimball or Eyring.

BTW Sooner, I sometimes see your cousin Henry at the grocery store. In fact my 7 YO almost crashed my cart into his once. I could say hi to him for you if you'd like?

[Jeff Lebowski]

We need a straw man smiley.

Yes! I would love to have one.

[Donuthole]

Yes! I would love to have one.

Can this be resized?

[Donuthole]

I kinda like this one, too, even though you can't really tell he's made of straw (or is he?):

[Jennerstein]

I care about the Church and want it to be better.

I see no reason why the church couldn't abandon sexism, homophobia, and remnants of racism.

I want to go back but can't until it changes.

The greatest obstacle for the church is complacent members and anti-intellectualism as demonstrated by Elder Bednar.

That doesn't quite make sense to me. If you want change to occur, you have to part of the impetus for change.

I've heard the argument that by leaving the church, eventually with enough numbers, the church will realize the folly of its ways and slowly move in a better direction. However it's my opinion that the church isn't going to change by people staying home on Sunday. It will change because members (whether believing or not) do their best to live the best lives they know how in the context of that cultural and religious experience.

[SoonerCoug]

That doesn't quite make sense to me. If you want change to occur, you have to part of the impetus for change.

I've heard the argument that by leaving the church, eventually with enough numbers, the church will realize the folly of its ways and slowly move in a better direction. However it's my opinion that the church isn't going to change by people staying home on Sunday. It will change because members (whether believing or not) do their best to live the best lives they know how in the context of that cultural and religious experience.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, my good friend Jennerstein.

Take a historical perspective.

Why did the Church abandon polygamy? Internal or external pressure? External. No doubt about it.

I think the same has been true on civil rights. The church has not led. The membership has very little mechanism to apply pressure on top leaders. When they have applied significant pressure (e.g., Kate Kelly), the members are disciplined.

My grandmother was Pres. Kimball's sister-in-law. She would ask him if he was praying about blacks and the priesthood. That's the closest thing I've seen with regard to internal pressure that might have been heard. But if it takes till 1978 to make such a basic change so vital to human rights, you are dealing with a major management problem.

There is no practical mechanism within Mormonism by which people can voice dissent and be heard.

Furthermore, there is a complete void of progressive leadership at the top. The church is dragged into the future. There is no real innovation whatsoever unless you are referring to a 2 billion dollar commercial development in SLC, mini-temples, and lowering the mission age by about a year, which are morally irrelevant issues. On morally relevant issues (equal and civil rights) the church has never really led. They might have held their own on a few moral issues but have never really advanced it with regard to the marginalized segments of society (the least of these) unless you want to cite church welfare, which I think to be overestimated in terms of total contribution in the scheme of things.

[YOhio]

. On morally relevant issues (equal and civil rights) the church has never led.

Women's suffrage. The first woman in America to vote was Mormon. Boom!

[Jennerstein]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, my good friend Jennerstein.

Take a historical perspective.

Why did the Church abandon polygamy? Internal or external pressure? External. No doubt about it.

I think the same has been true on civil rights. The church has not led. The membership has very little mechanism to apply pressure on top leaders. When they have applied significant pressure (e.g., Kate Kelly), the members are disciplined.

There is no practical mechanism within Mormonism by which people can voice dissent and be heard.

Furthermore, there is a complete void of progressive leadership at the top. The church is dragged into the future. There is no real innovation whatsoever unless you are referring to a 2 billion dollar commercial development in SLC, mini-temples, and lowering the mission age by about a year, which are morally irrelevant issues. On morally relevant issues (equal and civil rights) the church has never led.

You and I both agree that the church is a Conservative institution that gets dragged kicking and screaming into making changes.

However, just because the church's position on civil rights or polygamy was influenced by other side pressure doesn't mean that the members on the inside weren't important in that change. Perhaps my perspective is a result of my Chinese heritage, that change can come from those within the system who are willing to move things, albeit slowly.

To give you an example. I supported Prop 8, did the call tree, the whole thing. One of the hardest things I've had to do as a member of the church. It went against my personality and my logic and reason. I did it out of duty and faith.

Over time, my views towards gay marriage have changed. This past month, I was in Boston attending the marriage of my cousin to his partner; it was my first time attending a gay wedding. The officiator made a comment that it was because of love that people with extraordinarily different backgrounds (Mormons, Jews, Agnostics, Liberals, Conservatives) were gathered together.

My point is in the years between the two events, my views have evolved. I've spiritually grown and matured, partly because of examples of active LDS family members who lived their faith and who placed love of their gay son/brother above all else, and partly because of my own thoughts and beliefs.

I don't consider myself enlightened. I am an active faithful believing member of the church with conservative leanings. But change happened from the inside because people were willing to express themselves in the context of the religious construct. And now that I've changed, I end up becoming a part of whatever the church becomes.