LDS Elder Bednar shows how the brethren avoid difficult questions: No pre-prepared questions allowed

[dzheremi]

Watching this kind of manipulation in action is not only helpful in learning how to navigate such roadblocks put in the way to getting to the truth (on the Mormon religion, on the person of JS, on the BOM, on whatever), but also helps us to see why our Mormon friends on this website and elsewhere engage in discussion in the manner in which they do. The example is obviously set by their leaders, such as Elder Bednar. I hope everyone will find this video enlightening.

 

[Rescued One]

dzheremi, that is incredible and exactly what Mormons do even when you are a member! Remember Robert Millet's advice:

"Secondly, we really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions. I’ve not had all my questions answered. The Lord hasn’t chosen to do that. He probably hasn’t answered all of yours. And nor are we obligated to answer everyone else’s questions...

"The third introductory point I would make is this. As Latter-day Saints, you already know more about God, and Christ, and the plan of salvation than anyone who will attack you. Take my word for that, you already know more than your attackers will ever know. And so you and I should take some degree of confidence in that....

"The same is true with the concept of 'only true church.' You will find that will not be a popular concept. Um, that’s not one that people will say, 'Oh, well thank you so much for saying that.' If I didn’t already know by the whisperings of the Spirit to my soul, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact the kingdom of God on earth, that we hold the fullness of the gospel, that we hold the priesthood of Almighty God, if I didn’t already know that in a quiet way, I might suspect that’s the case by the kind of loud opposition that that very concept elicits from people...

"Now, note this, 'Now there was a strict law among the people of the church,' so there’s a church regulation, 'that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.'...

"Now, here’s a key verse. 'Nevertheless, there were many among them,' meaning many among the members of the church, 'who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly,' that means, in a hot way, 'with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their fists.' Now, I’ve had some pretty hefty scriptural discussions, but I’ve, I’ve never hit anybody in the face with my fist over it. So this, this is the members of the church, who have the truth, and they’re contending, warmly, as it were, they’re in a fist fight over the faith! That’s real contention.

“Now this was in the second year in the reign of Alma, and it was a cause of much affliction to the church; yea, it was the cause of much trial with the church.

"Now, notice this verse, which I think is haunting. 'For the hearts of many,' meaning those in the church, 'were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God.' Now, what does it mean to have your name blotted out? What happened if you were blotted out, if your name is blotted out? You’re excommunicated."
Mormon Scholar, Robert Millet, Instructs BYU Students on How to Lie for the Lord – Christian Apologetics Project

 

[He is the way]

I think I have answered most if not all of the difficult questions. The biggest problem I see is that people tend to over complicate the gospel:

(New Testament | Matthew 25:43 - 46)

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

(Old Testament | Ecclesiastes 12:13 - 14)

13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

(New Testament | Luke 10:25 - 28)

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Too many people are concerned with things that are not related to their salvation. Jesus has promised salvation to the obedient:


(New Testament | Hebrews 5:9)

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

 

[Rescued One]

The Mormon idea of obedience is a list of unending rules and agreeing obedience to what you aren't even told in advance. What did the Mormon Jesus do for Mormons? He gave them the opportunity to be saved if they are 100% obedient!

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel[Mormonism].
Articles of Faith 1

Doctrine and Covenants 130
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
Doctrine and Covenants 130

To Gain Salvation the Laws of God Must Be Obeyed

I * * * spoke to the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do and will be damned at last. We may tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and still not obey the commandments of God. The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it. (Feb. 21, 1844.) D. H. C. 6:223.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 332
(D. H. C. is Documentary History of the Church.)

If a man gets a fulness of the priesthood of God he has to get it the same way Jesus obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308

Some of you may want to skip this video --- I feel so sad for these children:

His mercy?

“Time and time again at funerals, statements are made that the deceased will inherit all blessings of celestial glory when that individual has in no way qualified by obtaining the necessary ordinances and by keeping the required covenants. That won’t happen. Such blessings can only be earned by meeting the Lord’s requirements. His mercy does not overcome the requirements of His law. They must be met.”
Richard G. Scott, Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2001, p.9).

My sister's Mormon funeral was horrible. The speaker said nothing about God.

Book of Mormon, Alma 42
13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence...

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.
Alma 42

LDS Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Enrichment G, p. 395

 

[Ironhold]

"Secondly, we really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions. I’ve not had all my questions answered. The Lord hasn’t chosen to do that. He probably hasn’t answered all of yours. And nor are we obligated to answer everyone else’s questions...

In other words, "Pick your battles".

As we've seen, there are people who hate us so much that they aren't willing to let the facts get in the way of their narrative. Past a certain point, trying to argue with them requires time and energy that could be more productively spent elsewhere.

 

[He is the way]

The Mormon idea of obedience is a list of unending rules and agreeing obedience to what you aren't even told in advance. What did the Mormon Jesus do for Mormons? He gave them the opportunity to be saved if they are 100% obedient!

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel[Mormonism].
Articles of Faith 1

Doctrine and Covenants 130
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
Doctrine and Covenants 130

To Gain Salvation the Laws of God Must Be Obeyed

I * * * spoke to the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do and will be damned at last. We may tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and still not obey the commandments of God. The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it. (Feb. 21, 1844.) D. H. C. 6:223.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 332
(D. H. C. is Documentary History of the Church.)

If a man gets a fulness of the priesthood of God he has to get it the same way Jesus obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308

Some of you may want to skip this video --- I feel so sad for these children:

His mercy?

“Time and time again at funerals, statements are made that the deceased will inherit all blessings of celestial glory when that individual has in no way qualified by obtaining the necessary ordinances and by keeping the required covenants. That won’t happen. Such blessings can only be earned by meeting the Lord’s requirements. His mercy does not overcome the requirements of His law. They must be met.”
Richard G. Scott, Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2001, p.9).

My sister's Mormon funeral was horrible. The speaker said nothing about God.

Book of Mormon, Alma 42
13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence...

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.
Alma 42

View attachment 268361

LDS Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Enrichment G, p. 395

The gospel is all about obedience. It is NOT wrong to obey God. God wants us to keep His commandments:

(Old Testament | Genesis 22:18)

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

(Old Testament | Genesis 27:8)

8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.

Famous last words:

(Old Testament | Exodus 5:2)

2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Do as the Lord asks:

(Old Testament | Exodus 19:5)

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

(Old Testament | Exodus 23:22)

22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

(Old Testament | Numbers 27:20)

20 And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 4:30)

30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 8:20)

20 As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 11:26 - 28)

26 ¶ Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 13:4)

4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 21:18 - 22)

18 ¶ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
22 ¶ And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 27:10)

10 Thou shalt therefore obey the voice of the LORD thy God, and do his commandments and his statutes, which I command thee this day.

There is not room here to post all of the scriptures that are about obedience to God. There is not room to post all of the scriptures about the downfall of the disobedient. These are just a few of them. Be careful what is being taught:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:19)

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[AvisG]

Everyone does this to one degree or another. It's not unique to Mormons.

William Lane Craig, surely one of the greatest Protestant apologists of the past 100 years and a renowned debater at the highest levels, always insists on going first in his debates. He admits he wants to steer the discussion and doesn't want any curveballs. On the one occasion where he allowed a well-prepared atheist to go for first, he admits he was caught off guard.

Frank Turek, a minor-league but still prominent apologist, does exactly the same thing. I can tell you this from personal experience. No matter what the question happens to be, Frank is going to pretty much ignore the actual question and respond with same robotic spiel he's repeated 4,000 times.

I happened to be listening to David Wheaton's radio show The Christian Worldview one morning when a guest unexpectedly said something mildly contrary to Wheaton's fanatical Young Earth perspective. The radio immediately went to dead air. When it returned, Wheaton and the guest fumbled through an awkward semi-retraction of what the guest had said.

EVERY segment of Christianity does this. The more 'controlling' the segment, the more obvious it's going to be. I'm not a Mormon, but there are plenty of serious LDS scholars who deal with serious questions and issues. It doesn't appear to me from the video that this was a forum where "penetrating questions" would've been appropriate. You could do the same sort of baiting with a similar video from many, many other denominations if the forum were one where challenging questions weren't appropriate. I could've made a similar video at any number of Campus Crusade or Southern Baptist gatherings in my youth.

That's all this really is: Mormon baiting.

 

[Peter1000]

Watching this kind of manipulation in action is not only helpful in learning how to navigate such roadblocks put in the way to getting to the truth (on the Mormon religion, on the person of JS, on the BOM, on whatever), but also helps us to see why our Mormon friends on this website and elsewhere engage in discussion in the manner in which they do. The example is obviously set by their leaders, such as Elder Bednar. I hope everyone will find this video enlightening.

If you were to travel with Elder Bednar for several months, you would love him like a brother in Jesus Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

I have no doubt Elder Bednar is a loving, good man, Peter. I don't think the Mormon religion purposely puts psychopaths or bad people in power, as several high-profile cases of abuse have shown where the abuser was thrown out, thank God. (Though there is the recent situation of sexual assault at the missionary center or whatever it's called; I don't want to go into detail because the point of this thread is not to bash Mormonism, but to talk about how the shaping of the Q&A at this event can provide an insight as to how Mormons think.)

This is a separate issue than the one this thread is about, however, and I feel like people in general have missed the crucial contextual difference of this talk and the other examples brought up of Christian churches or individuals supposedly "doing the same thing" (e.g., William Lane Craig). This wasn't a debate. This wasn't filled with hostile anti-Mormons or whatever. These would've been Mormons asking questions of their own leader, presumably because they have reason to assume that he has either answers or some way of answering their questions that could help them in their desire to know their own religion better.

There is also the fact that having pre-prepared questions would not disallow the elder (or anyone) from controlling the way of the conversation. My own Church has, at least since the time of HH Pope Shenouda III (r. 1971-2012), had a weekly audience/Q&A with our patriarch in which he takes questions that are given to him in writing. I have no doubt that there are some less 'faith-affirming' questions among these (Egypt is, after all, a strongly Muslim-majority society, so it is not difficult to find many critical of Christianity) that never make it to him, or if they do their answers are at least not broadcast on one of the Coptic satellite TV channels which usually hosted the Q&A session, for both the obvious reason (i.e., control of the narrative), and for various reasons that would not have analogues in Elder Bednar's situation. (e.g., not wanting to have violence visited upon your community from answering them in too strident a manner, in case an extremist Muslim might see it and use it as a pretext to attack Coptic people.)

 

[Peter1000]

dzheremi, that is incredible and exactly what Mormons do even when you are a member! Remember Robert Millet's advice:

"Secondly, we really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions. I’ve not had all my questions answered. The Lord hasn’t chosen to do that. He probably hasn’t answered all of yours. And nor are we obligated to answer everyone else’s questions...

"The third introductory point I would make is this. As Latter-day Saints, you already know more about God, and Christ, and the plan of salvation than anyone who will attack you. Take my word for that, you already know more than your attackers will ever know. And so you and I should take some degree of confidence in that....

"The same is true with the concept of 'only true church.' You will find that will not be a popular concept. Um, that’s not one that people will say, 'Oh, well thank you so much for saying that.' If I didn’t already know by the whisperings of the Spirit to my soul, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact the kingdom of God on earth, that we hold the fullness of the gospel, that we hold the priesthood of Almighty God, if I didn’t already know that in a quiet way, I might suspect that’s the case by the kind of loud opposition that that very concept elicits from people...

"Now, note this, 'Now there was a strict law among the people of the church,' so there’s a church regulation, 'that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.'...

"Now, here’s a key verse. 'Nevertheless, there were many among them,' meaning many among the members of the church, 'who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly,' that means, in a hot way, 'with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their fists.' Now, I’ve had some pretty hefty scriptural discussions, but I’ve, I’ve never hit anybody in the face with my fist over it. So this, this is the members of the church, who have the truth, and they’re contending, warmly, as it were, they’re in a fist fight over the faith! That’s real contention.

“Now this was in the second year in the reign of Alma, and it was a cause of much affliction to the church; yea, it was the cause of much trial with the church.

"Now, notice this verse, which I think is haunting. 'For the hearts of many,' meaning those in the church, 'were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God.' Now, what does it mean to have your name blotted out? What happened if you were blotted out, if your name is blotted out? You’re excommunicated."
Mormon Scholar, Robert Millet, Instructs BYU Students on How to Lie for the Lord – Christian Apologetics Project

Does the word "excomunicated" bother you? Does Jesus blot out believers that turn un-believers. Yes.

 

[Peter1000]

I have no doubt Elder Bednar is a loving, good man, Peter. I don't think the Mormon religion purposely puts psychopaths or bad people in power, as several high-profile cases of abuse have shown where the abuser was thrown out, thank God. (Though there is the recent situation of sexual assault at the missionary center or whatever it's called; I don't want to go into detail because the point of this thread is not to bash Mormonism, but to talk about how the shaping of the Q&A at this event can provide an insight as to how Mormons think.)

This is a separate issue than the one this thread is about, however, and I feel like people in general have missed the crucial contextual difference of this talk and the other examples brought up of Christian churches or individuals supposedly "doing the same thing" (e.g., William Lane Craig). This wasn't a debate. This wasn't filled with hostile anti-Mormons or whatever. These would've been Mormons asking questions of their own leader, presumably because they have reason to assume that he has either answers or some way of answering their questions that could help them in their desire to know their own religion better.

There is also the fact that having pre-prepared questions would not disallow the elder (or anyone) from controlling the way of the conversation. My own Church has, at least since the time of HH Pope Shenouda III (r. 1971-2012), had a weekly audience/Q&A with our patriarch in which he takes questions that are given to him in writing. I have no doubt that there are some less 'faith-affirming' questions among these (Egypt is, after all, a strongly Muslim-majority society, so it is not difficult to find many critical of Christianity) that never make it to him, or if they do their answers are at least not broadcast on one of the Coptic satellite TV channels which usually hosted the Q&A session, for both the obvious reason (i.e., control of the narrative), and for various reasons that would not have analogues in Elder Bednar's situation. (e.g., not wanting to have violence visited upon your community from answering them in too strident a manner, in case an extremist Muslim might see it and use it as a pretext to attack Coptic people.)

There are difficult questions that can be asked, and a great deal of learning needs to take place before it can be answered correctly. So our apostles cannot in a 2 hour answer and question appearance, take on a question that would take days to answer fully and properly.

It really has nothing to do with an embarrassing question, since no question is embarrassing. There are also short answers that could be given, but would not satisfy the one asking. Therefore, if someone asks a "difficult" question, the answer is to go to the source, which is Jesus himself, with much fasting and study and prayer. Not a 5 minute explanation.

That is why I say if you were to travel with Brother Bednar for several months and learn from him, you would love him like a brother in Jesus Christ. His life if full of Jesus Christ. You would enjoy the ride.

 

[Peter1000]

Everyone does this to one degree or another. It's not unique to Mormons.

William Lane Craig, surely one of the greatest Protestant apologists of the past 100 years and a renowned debater at the highest levels, always insists on going first in his debates. He admits he wants to steer the discussion and doesn't want any curveballs. On the one occasion where he allowed a well-prepared atheist to go for first, he admits he was caught off guard.

Frank Turek, a minor-league but still prominent apologist, does exactly the same thing. I can tell you this from personal experience. No matter what the question happens to be, Frank is going to pretty much ignore the actual question and respond with same robotic spiel he's repeated 4,000 times.

I happened to be listening to David Wheaton's radio show The Christian Worldview one morning when a guest unexpectedly said something mildly contrary to Wheaton's fanatical Young Earth perspective. The radio immediately went to dead air. When it returned, Wheaton and the guest fumbled through an awkward semi-retraction of what the guest had said.

EVERY segment of Christianity does this. The more 'controlling' the segment, the more obvious it's going to be. I'm not a Mormon, but there are plenty of serious LDS scholars who deal with serious questions and issues. It doesn't appear to me from the video that this was a forum where "penetrating questions" would've been appropriate. You could do the same sort of baiting with a similar video from many, many other denominations if the forum were one where challenging questions weren't appropriate. I could've made a similar video at any number of Campus Crusade or Southern Baptist gatherings in my youth.

That's all this really is: Mormon baiting.

Thank you AvisG, this was not a forum for a probing, difficult question. There are forums for that, and we are not afraid of answering difficult questions, but there is a time and a place for that, which may take several meetings to answer, not in 10 minutes.

But thank you again for your reasoning.

 

[dzheremi]

There are difficult questions that can be asked, and a great deal of learning needs to take place before it can be answered correctly. So our apostles cannot in a 2 hour answer and question appearance, take on a question that would take days to answer fully and properly.

It really has nothing to do with an embarrassing question, since no question is embarrassing. There are also short answers that could be given, but would not satisfy the one asking. Therefore, if someone asks a "difficult" question, the answer is to go to the source, which is Jesus himself, with much fasting and study and prayer. Not a 5 minute explanation.

See, I disagree with this as a premise. Obviously we are to take all of our troubles and problems to God, and there is nothing that He cannot or will not deal with in His own time and according to His own dictates, but separate from that you have a group of people in Mormonism who are there to answer the laity's questions. That's what the event was. So if they're not doing that because "oh, it would take too long to give a comprehensive answer", then that begins to seem like a cop-out even if it is true. You can always give a longer, more detailed answer or a shorter one, but simply not answering a particular question because it's not the type that you want (i.e., someone wrote it down) seems particularly evasive and kind of weird, like it subverts the entire purpose of the event.

And again, it doesn't have to be this way. Not every answer needs to be deep to be helpful. And of course not every question is deep or requires a deep explanation.

By way of illustration, here is HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory answering some softball cultural-type questions (Egyptians have a very interesting culture around marriage, for instance) in a televised Q&A, as I explained earlier. No doubt some people who asked these questions would want more guidance on them, but that is what their priest is there for (as HH himself points out for the one more serious question about marriage). The point is, HH is still answering them, even if some of them are a bit on the silly/precious side (one girl wants him to wish her a happy birthday; aww):

Why could your leaders not do something like that? Or do they already do so?

That is why I say if you were to travel with Brother Bednar for several months and learn from him, you would love him like a brother in Jesus Christ. His life if full of Jesus Christ. You would enjoy the ride.

It's possible. I'm never against interacting with people of other religions, though this particular combination or situation seems unlikely.

 

[Peter1000]

See, I disagree with this as a premise. Obviously we are to take all of our troubles and problems to God, and there is nothing that He cannot or will not deal with in His own time and according to His own dictates, but separate from that you have a group of people in Mormonism who are there to answer the laity's questions. That's what the event was. So if they're not doing that because "oh, it would take too long to give a comprehensive answer", then that begins to seem like a cop-out even if it is true. You can always give a longer, more detailed answer or a shorter one, but simply not answering a particular question because it's not the type that you want (i.e., someone wrote it down) seems particularly evasive and kind of weird, like it subverts the entire purpose of the event.

And again, it doesn't have to be this way. Not every answer needs to be deep to be helpful. And of course not every question is deep or requires a deep explanation.

By way of illustration, here is HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory answering some softball cultural-type questions (Egyptians have a very interesting culture around marriage, for instance) in a televised Q&A, as I explained earlier. No doubt some people who asked these questions would want more guidance on them, but that is what their priest is there for (as HH himself points out for the one more serious question about marriage). The point is, HH is still answering them, even if some of them are a bit on the silly/precious side (one girl wants him to wish her a happy birthday; aww):

Why could your leaders not do something like that? Or do they already do so?



It's possible. I'm never against interacting with people of other religions, though this particular combination or situation seems unlikely.

The person receiving an answer needs to be in a proper spirit, so that the Holy Spirit can give the answer to their heart. Again, some quesitons are difficult in our history, just like yours, and it would not be proper to answer a difficult question in 5 minutes.

The short answer to: Did JS commit adultery when he took on more than 1 wife, is: NO.
Would that be satisfactory to you? So what do we do in a 2 hr question and answer session with many people wanting to ask a question? Take the whole 2 hours about that one question which could take hours of back and forth discussion?

BTW, your pope was answering letters that he received and he must have picked the softest questions that he could. Not a good example of a difficult question being answered by one of your leaders.

I know it is unlikely that you could travel with Brother Bednar, but I wish you could. I would love to travel with your pope, it would be an interesting ride too.

 

[dzheremi]

The person receiving an answer needs to be in a proper spirit, so that the Holy Spirit can give the answer to their heart.

In that case, then why would they need to ask any of your elders anything?

Again, some quesitons are difficult in our history, just like yours, and it would not be proper to answer a difficult question in 5 minutes.

I think you've missed my point: the sorts of questions that are allowed in the Mormon Q&A are 'softball' questions, so why couldn't they accept such questions in written form? They wouldn't require deep answers anyway.

The short answer to: Did JS commit adultery when he took on more than 1 wife, is: NO.
Would that be satisfactory to you?

No, but I'm not the one who would be asking the question. It would be the faithful Mormon at the meeting asking the question. That's my point: It's a Mormon meeting. It is weird to have this reticence to talk honestly and openly to your own people, regardless of how long it would take.

So what do we do in a 2 hr question and answer session with many people wanting to ask a question? Take the whole 2 hours about that one question which could take hours of back and forth discussion?

If it is important enough, yes, but I agree that it would be rude to others who want to ask questions, so it should probably be its own presentation/discussion. (Still, why would it not be possible to answer in 5 minutes?)

BTW, your pope was answering letters that he received and he must have picked the softest questions that he could. Not a good example of a difficult question being answered by one of your leaders.

Because that's not what it was an example of. Again, questions that aren't deep don't require deep answers, so the defense/excuse of "We don't want to take too much time" or whatever doesn't work.

I know it is unlikely that you could travel with Brother Bednar, but I wish you could. I would love to travel with your pope, it would be an interesting ride too.

HH Pope Tawadros II (the current Pope) has continued the tradition left by his predecessor in having Q&A sessions and a weekly sermon. Unfortunately I could only find the Q&A section in Arabic with no subtitles, so that wouldn't be helpful, but I did find a clip of a short interview by Al Jazeera English which has translation dubbed over it in which HH talks very straight on the political situation in Egypt, which is pretty tough to do. (HH Pope Shenouda III got exiled by then-president Sadat for opposing what the government was doing back in the 1980s; after being deposed by the government -- a deposition that no one accepted -- he was confined to a monastery in the Egyptian desert for three years and did not return until 1985, after Sadat's assassination.)

An interesting ride, indeed.

Anyway, this thread is not about my Church. My question is still: if other leaders can take pre-written questions, why is there this resistance to that? Are Mormon leaders somehow afraid of being 'ambushed' in their own meetings? That seems unlikely.

 

[Peter1000]

In that case, then why would they need to ask any of your elders anything?



I think you've missed my point: the sorts of questions that are allowed in the Mormon Q&A are 'softball' questions, so why couldn't they accept such questions in written form? They wouldn't require deep answers anyway.



No, but I'm not the one who would be asking the question. It would be the faithful Mormon at the meeting asking the question. That's my point: It's a Mormon meeting. It is weird to have this reticence to talk honestly and openly to your own people, regardless of how long it would take.



If it is important enough, yes, but I agree that it would be rude to others who want to ask questions, so it should probably be its own presentation/discussion. (Still, why would it not be possible to answer in 5 minutes?)



Because that's not what it was an example of. Again, questions that aren't deep don't require deep answers, so the defense/excuse of "We don't want to take too much time" or whatever doesn't work.



HH Pope Tawadros II (the current Pope) has continued the tradition left by his predecessor in having Q&A sessions and a weekly sermon. Unfortunately I could only find the Q&A section in Arabic with no subtitles, so that wouldn't be helpful, but I did find a clip of a short interview by Al Jazeera English which has translation dubbed over it in which HH talks very straight on the political situation in Egypt, which is pretty tough to do. (HH Pope Shenouda III got exiled by then-president Sadat for opposing what the government was doing back in the 1980s; after being deposed by the government -- a deposition that no one accepted -- he was confined to a monastery in the Egyptian desert for three years and did not return until 1985, after Sadat's assassination.)

An interesting ride, indeed.

Anyway, this thread is not about my Church. My question is still: if other leaders can take pre-written questions, why is there this resistance to that? Are Mormon leaders somehow afraid of being 'ambushed' in their own meetings? That seems unlikely.

The leaders answer many difficult questions that are mailed to them in written form. But are not going to take a difficult question in a 2 hour question and answer session for the reasons that I have presented.

What you are trying to say is that they run from difficult questions. And the answer is that they do not, but they are not going to answer those kinds of questions in a 2 hour question and answer session. They will do that on a one on one or by letter, but not in a 2 hour question and answer session. You should be able to understand this without too much difficulty.

 

[dzheremi]

I understand it. I just think it is wrong and cowardly. To set such a condition that the questions have to come 'from the spirit' or whatever is just setting people up for spiritual delusion in addition to guaranteeing that they won't be asked anything of substance.

Again, bishops of other churches answer difficult questions in brief discussions. There's no reason Mormon leaders couldn't do the same but that they apparently don't want to.

The Coptic Orthodox Church and politics, in about 5 minutes: "Injustice should not be dealt with in a tribal manner"

(A difficult question in an Egyptian/Middle Eastern context, and increasingly in the West.)

 

[Rescued One]

Does the word "excomunicated" bother you? Does Jesus blot out believers that turn un-believers. Yes.

Are you kidding? Excommunication from Mormonism is a blessing if the reason for it is that you don't believe Mormonism!

God says to come out from among them.

 

[Rescued One]

"Now, notice this verse, which I think is haunting. 'For the hearts of many,' meaning those in the church, 'were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God.' Now, what does it mean to have your name blotted out? What happened if you were blotted out, if your name is blotted out? You’re excommunicated."

Excommunicated: "... their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God."

 

[He is the way]

Are you kidding? Excommunication from Mormonism is a blessing if the reason for it is that you don't believe Mormonism!

God says to come out from among them.

Excommunication is only a blessing when it encourages people to turn away from the path to destruction and repent and chose to the path of LOVE.