I will try not to offend!

[_David A. Bednar]

Watch the typos, there, Boyd. You're going to appear less than god-like to your flock.

lol Liz, I think the content of his message has already put the nail in that coffin:

it is true that she is fat and ugly

Not something I can picture the Jesus I know ever saying about anyone... man, I can't believe these guys don't mind being on record by writting such crap... it is almost comical and I am still having some trouble believing it is actually them... I thought people in positions of authority in the Mormon church would have exercised more caution, but I guess not.

My dear brother Aquinas:

Exercising caution is a rule only for those without the spirit. We, the 15 in the quorum of the 12, have the spirit, and thus need not exercise caution. Now, there is some straightforward logic, if I might say so myself.

Heed the words of the apostles on the earth in these latter days. That, my dear brother, is true salvation.

Your patient and long-suffering brother in the harness,

Elder David A. Bednar

[_Tommy]

My Dear Elder,

You wrote,

Any advice? See you soon at the quorum of the 15 meeting in the temple.

As always, your brother in the harness, Elder David A. Bednar

The door to my office is always open for the outpouring of godly advice. And most certainly open for a fellow special witness. A number of years ago a young man came into my office, distraught from the wages of sin bearing down upon him. To add to his burdens, he had been offended. By the bishop no less. There had been some disputes concerning his process of repentence. I asked him what was the matter. He said that during the many talks he had with the bishop, the bishop over time was confusing details about his transgressions. For instance, he had told the bishop about a certain habit he'd engaged in two times the previous week. But during the next meeting, the Bishop asked about the young man's struggle in repentence for the habit he'd engaged in four times in the prior week. The young man grew anxious, "But Bishop, I only did it twice!"

Now this is interesting situation, you see. On the one hand, we have a sinful youth who is under the influence of the adversary claiming that a certain event happened twice. And in the other hand, I mean, on the other hand, we have a man ordained by God, given the power of discernment, saying that the same event happened four times. Now Elder, how many times did this event happen?

If your watch says it's tuesday, and President Hinckley says it's thursday, what day is it?

And if a senior apostle spells "apostasy" as "apostacy", how is the word spelled?

Unquestioning obedience is the first law of heaven by dear brother. And the tests of this obedience come in many ways.

[_smitty]

Thanks there Dave you prove my point. I am doing the Mormon thing and looking down my nose at you. And please don't refer to me as you brother, that term is reserved for friends and family. Do you believe yourself? Go back and read your post it is like you are running for President. If you have to look up that up good I am happy you do TBM, Book of Abraham (bank of America is how regular people see that), DILLIGAF.

[_desert_vulture]

Say hello to your wife from elder David A. Bednar. By the way, we have narrowed down your location. We will soon find you, be assured. Until then, all the best to you and your loved ones. The harnessed and least of the 15 of the quorum of the 12.

Thanks for the interest. Oh, and along that vein, sorry I told you that you "had you head squarely up your ass" back early-on in the thread. You have proved to me that you are very compassionate, especially trying to seek me out to hold a court of love for me. It's a gospel of love, isn't it? That's what I thought. Now, don't screw it up in Conference and become the next Czar of Internet Porn Control. Don't screw the pooch David, ok? Now that we've built some confidence between us, I just wanted to let you know that you can ease up a little on the whole orthodoxy thing. Follow Tommy boy's lead, talk about little old ladies that you helped as a kid. That will get you some mileage, until you take the reins someday. And don't let Tommy boy push brother Gordon out the door so fast. I know he's almost 97, and everyone's waiting around for his maker to take him to the other side, but he is the mouthpiece dammit! Leave him in there. Don't shove him out the door, or everyone will know its a coup. We've had Benson, McKay and other prophets reach a vegetable state, and still be able to lead the church. So all is well in Zion, brutha, peace..out.

-DV

[Tavares Standfield]

About my dear sister secretary,

I have been unsure just how to go about suggesting to her to lose a little weight. It is sure she has been offended by someone and is covering her depression and aggression by eating too many Big Macs. And recently, she has been complaining that her "panty hose allowance" is not enough. What should I do? Can we fire her? I would prefer a younger, in-shape secretary, like yours, but I have felt that, being the youngest of the 15, that I shouldn't request such a change. I am open to your wise counsel in this matter, as always.

Brother Bednar,

As you well know, the most attractive sisters are set apart for the senior leadership. It has been this way since the time of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You should've learned this during your orientation.

About the rough draft which did not meet your approval. If I might say here, I think you confused my son's research project for his Utah History class at the BYU, with my upcoming address at this weekend's conference.

I never had a chance to read through his report, but he thought you might have some suggestions to make it more faith-promoting. What are they teaching these young children anyway at the BYU? He comes back home on the weekends with all kinds of wacky notions. He says he loves the class he attends with Brother Midgley, but I am not so sure that Brother Midgley has his head screwed on right, if I may be so blunt. That guy has a few loose screws and may need a rebuke from one of the 15 to set him straight. I might add, if he fails to clean up his act, we perhaps shold send him packing to that other "university" nearby, where, if he so desires, he can continue to teach his uninspired views of the gospel. What do you think?

The topic of Brother Midgley has weighed on my mind for some time now. Rest assured, the brethren think of him constantly. We are watching him closely.

On the other hand, my speech, which was under my son's report, was of a totally different tone and topic. The first third of the speech is a rehash of your great speech to our church educators about what history really is, and what it clearly is not. Please note my references to that great and inspiring speech. I think you will be pleased.

You will also notice that I further recommend that those who are pitching their tents on the fringes of Mormonism are walking a thin line and may soon fall into apostacy. I specifically call those to repentance who feel that they can be cafeteria-mormons and pick and choose those things that fit in with their confused notions of what is true and right and disregard the rest. I have noticed that these fringe tent pitchers are often the ones with teased hair, non-white shirts and more than one earring. I believe you will specifically enjoy that part of my message because it again refers to your other recent speech on the evils of teased hair.

Finally, I believe you will approve of the last part of the speech, where I illuminate the grand, celestial moral relativity principle and teach the members how to understand what may be right in one instance, may not be right in another. This should end all confusion that our dear brothers and sisters have in understanding the clear and simple truths of the gospel.

I look forward to meeting with you in the temple on Friday. Perhaps then we can clear up any further misunderstandings. You are the last person I would ever wish to offend. Please forgive your fellow brother in the harness, yea, even your fellow witness of the name of Christ, our elder brother, yea, even the Savior, who is surely to come again soon, in these latter-days.

Your fellow brother in the harness, Elder David A. Bednar

P.S. About your dry cleaning: This was another complaint from my secretary. She feels the "panty hose allowance" which the Church provides our dear sisters working in the COB, is not enough to cover your dry cleaning bills. Do you have any advice? For now, I am paying for it out of my pocket. In any event, it will be in your office tomorrow in plenty of time for our conference this weekend.

The topics you plan to cover in your talk make me proud to have you in the leadership. I must confess, I was a little wary at first, I was one of the early 'nay' votes when your name came up, but young man, you are beginning to win me over. Tell your secretary that my dry cleaning comes first, and perhaps she can use the money she saves when she gets off the big macs to use towards her panty hose, after tithing of course.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Elder Bednar, I think you're the cutest of all the apostles, barring that hunky Uchtdorf. His silky silver hair just drives me wild.

You look a bit tense. Perhaps your chubby secretary could loosen you up a little and burn a few calories at the same time? It would be an act of service for both of you.

Kimberly Ann

[_David A. Bednar]

My dear brothers and sisters:

Perhaps some of you have already heard my talk in the Saturday morning session of General Conference. For those of you who haven't yet heard it, I hope you will get the chance to do so. I truly felt the Spirit as I prayerfully prepared the Parable of the Pickle. I hope it will help all of you to see the way back to the gospel and find that desire you once had to put on the harness of God and work together to building up the Kingdom of god in these, the latter days.

The reviews are quite astounding, if I say so myself. Glowing reports from around the web! Here are just a few for you to consider.

From the exmormon.org board:

1. Here is my original Bednar rant that I posted about him the first time he came to my attention about ayear ago:


The calling of the newest apostle David A. Bednar is the beginning of what I see as a disturbing trend. This guy is intelligent, highly educated, sophisticated, socially adept, articulate, young, physically attractive 9well to your average Mo female, I guess), and perfectly accessorized by the ideal Mormon wife, children, and socio-economic status with accoutrements. He comes from two highly regarded fields – academia and business. He is the kind of guy that non-Mormons admire, respect and see as “normal”. He is able to “pass” among the gentiles and not ruffle any feathers or scare anybody with his religiosity. He is the perfect model of LDS leadership for the new millennium.

If you have been reading the church magazines and newspapers you may have noticed that Bednar is being featured more and more in the articles. He is also being pushed up front at conferene talks. I find the way he writes about church doctrine and issues chilling in the extreme. I have a distinct feeling he knows the whole thing is complete and utter nonsense, yet it serves his purposes to go along and spout the party mantra. He is an excellent communicator and skilled at using words to manipulate the thoughts and behavior of others. I suspect this man is a craven power-monger. I fully expect him to be president, prophet, seer and revelator before too much longer.

Bednar’s training and expertise is in communications and organizational behavior. He is the author of a book entitled "Organizational Behavior: Understanding and Managing People at Work". What a perfect background to prepare one to be dictator of the Mormon cult. I cannot image anyone being a better candidate for controlling the drones of the LDS corporate beehive, all the while appearing so appealing to the outside world. It’s funny, but in many ways, Bednar is not dissimilar from how the anti-Christ is often conceptualized and described. This man is the Mormon version of Damien from the Omen. Quite frankly, I find him frightening.

Bednar is a perfect choice for continuing some of the strategies started by Hinkley such as:

1.Gradual retreat from the most peculiar aspects of Mormon doctrine to make it more palatable to younger members and less weird to the gentile majority.

2.Increased marketing, communications and PR spin to the non-Mormon majority to shape public opinion about LDS incorporated. The most important thing is to always look good to the outside world – no matter what that takes – no matter what doctrines have to be denied or flat out lied about.

3.More lying, prevarication, obstruction around the church’s true history to both members and gentiles.

4.Increased emphasis on tithing and on using church funds to invest in for-profit business ventures.

5.Increased participation in the fundamentalist political agenda pushed by the religious right.

I think this type of person is becoming more common and men like this are being aggressively recruited and promoted within the LDS power structure. Kim B. Clark, recent Harvard Dean and now ensconced as president of BYU Idaho (Bednar’s previous post) is yet another example. I would expect to see him named as an apostle before long as well. There will be more of this type coming through the ranks as well as many of the ancient GAs die off. Bednar represents the face of future church leadership. The day of the super slick Mormon opportunist is upon us.

Blech - I have to go take a shower now......

2. How many of you want to be preserved as a sour condiment?

I don't know about you , but being a fresh cucumber seems much more appealing to me.

The Mormon church wants to pickle all of it's members so that they will all be the same forever!!!!

~the walking dead preserved in a formaldehyde of blind obedience.~

And from my dear friends at mormonapologetics.org:

3. Yeah, the way he emphasized total and continual immersion I expect we'll be hearing stories of baptism drownings soon

4. Darn. I was going to nominate the new "Parable of the Pickle". I liked it. But then, I remember my aunt's insanely wonderful home-canned dill pickles.

Maybe if you saw it in ASL (American Sign Language) on the internet like I did, it would have been more inspiring.

5. But Elder Bednar's the-purpose-of-coming here is to get pickled talk tickled me. It actually was a very good illustration of all we have to go through in life to get perfected.

6. by the way, I liked Elder Bednar's analogy... and the music speaks to my soul...

And from thefoyer.org:

7. "As cucumbers now are, pickles once were; as pickles now are, cucumbers may become."

It's not doctrine, of course. That's more of a couplet than anything.

8. What's the object lesson? Immerse yourself in bitter, nasty brine until your fundamental character is changed into something squishy?

We've been saying that about the fundamental institutions of Mormonism for a long time: missions, young marriages, laboring in undesired callings. Glad a lint-head like Bednar finally picked up on it.

9. Sweetheart, you know I've always had a raging clue for you.

I wonder if there were any women in the congregation thinking about Bednar's pickle?

10. I like Larry. I wouldn't mind being like Larry, but Larry the cucumber is adamant that he is not a pickle. He seems to be happy to be a cucumber and has no desire to be a pickle. I wish people like Elder Bednar would let the rest of us be happy being cucumbers and stop trying to make us pickles.

11. I just wonder what it means when you like cucumbers AND pickles (and I know how to make pickles too)?

I'm kinda easy to please, don't think Bednar would approve.

12. Classic line from Bednar's talk: "My mother always inspected my cucumbers." I thought he would launch into a morality diatribe at that point, but he stuck with the total immersion and saturation in the gospel schtick.

13. Isn't it interesting how every conference has one talk that is either outrageous or stupid. And as soon as it is in the can, the entire DAMU is discussing it. And isn't it interesting how all of us know exactly which talk it will be.

I wonder why the bretheren don't have the power of discernment to see how their words will be mocked as soon as they leave their mouth. (For instance, I started this thread what Bednar was still talking.)

Anybody with kids at home would have realized this was going to be compared to Vegi-Tales. Anybody but Bednar, apparently.

14. LOL--from Vegi tales to Bednar's pickle and back to Vegi tales...hmmm--I'm not touching that comment from DV with a 10-foot cucumber/pickle.

I am quite happy with these reviews thus far and look forward to many more.

My wife and I also thought you would be happy to have our favorite pickle recipe. What better way to learn the principles of the gospel than to learn how to turn a cucumber into a pickle:

Brined Pickles Recipes
Brined Dill Pickles
10 pounds 4 to 6 inch cucumbers
3/4th cup mixed pickling spices
2 to 3 bunches fresh or dried dill
1 1/2 cups canning salt
2 cups vinegar
2 gallons water
garlic is optional

Wash and drain cucumbers. Place half the pickling spices and one layer of dill in a clean pickling container. Add cucumbers to within 4 inches of the top. Combine salt, vinegar and water; ladle over cucumbers. Place a layer of sill and remaining pickling spices over the top. Add garlic, if desired. Weight cucumbers under brine.
Store container between 70 and 75 degrees. Remove scum that forms on surface of brine each day. Let cucumbers ferment until well flavored with dill and clear throughout. Pickles should be ready for use in about 2 to 3 weeks.
Remove pickles from brine. Strain the pickle brine; bring to a boil. Pack pickles into hot jars, leaving 1/4th inch headspace. Remove air bubbles. Adjust two-piece caps. Process 15 minutes in a boiling water canner.
Yield: about 6 quarts.

Cucumber Chunks
5 pounds 3 to 4 inch cucumbers, cut into 1 inch slices
1 1/2 cups canning salt
4 quarts plus 3 cups water, divided
2 quarts plus 1 cup vinegar, divided
4 to 5 cups sugar, divided
2 tablespoons mixed pickling spices

Put cucumber slices in a clean pickling container. Dissolve salt in 4 quarts water. Pour Salt water mixture over cucumber slices. Weigh cucumbers under brine. Cover container and let stand 36 hours in a cool place. Drain; rinse and drain thoroughly. Discard brine. Pour 1 quart vinegar over cucumbers; add water to cover. Simmer 10 minutes. Drain, discard liquid. Combine 2 cups sugar, 5 cups vinegar and 3 cups water. Tie spices in a spice bag; add to vinegar mixture. Simmer 10 minutes. Pour pickling liquid over cucumbers; cover and let stand 24 hours. Drain, reserving pickling liquid; add remaining 2 to 3 cups sugar to pickling liquid according to taste; bring to a boil; pour over cucumbers. Cover; let stand 24 hours. Remove spice bag and pickles. Bring pickling liquid to a boil. Pack pickles into hot jars, leaving 1/4th inch headspace. Ladle hot liquid over pickles, leaving 1/4th inch headspace. Remove air bubbles. Adjust twp-piece caps. Process 15 minutes in a boiling water canner.
Yield: about 8 pints.

Please let us know how the canning goes for each of you. Remember: full immersion. No halfway dunking.

Your brother in the gospel harness, Elder David A. Bednar

[_JAK]

Ok Aquinas I’ll look at your edited note.

First off, what I originally wrote was this: "If God is all good, then truth leads to God, since all truth is good."

If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things.
Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:

1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God

The above is nonsense Aquinas. Your first premise is an assertion without evidence. What evidence is there for God? Your premise is not clear. Is it saying that anything good in the world must come from God? If so what are your warrants for that premise? If a premise in an argument is ambiguous and it is an assertion absent evidence, such that the truth function can not be determined, no conclusion from that premise can be relied upon.

Your second sentence makes no sense. Is it saying that all truths in the world are good..and if so again what are the grounds for that claim?
Then your conclusion doesn’t even follow from the premises. And it’s also nonsense. Truth doesn’t lead to something.

The whole argument Aquinas is simply 3 assertions absent evidence, which don’t even make sense.

If I look at your sentence explanation you seem to be saying that anything good in this case truth is good, in this world must come from God, if God is all good. And if so again it's the same problem, it's all meaningless unless you warrant your claims. And in doing so you are going to need evidence which can be objectively evaluated.

If anything, my original sentence lacked a premise that defined a term (namely, premise 1, the term "all good"). When I wrote the sentence, I didn't think I'd have to defend it. The argument (if you want to call it that) that you gave as an example is both invalid and unsound and did not represent my argument.

That I will agree with.

Let's look:
Quote:
If chocolate cake with whipped cream is all good
and truth is all good,
Threfore chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth.

Here is your arguments structure

1. C is all G
2. T is all G
3. Therefore, C is T

Lets put some nouns/adjectives in it to clarify its absurdity:

1. Chocolate Cakes are all sweet
2. Donoughts are all sweet
3. Therefore, chocolate cakes are donoughts

Clearly invalid.

Yup you are right it is invalid. I would have thought you would have appreciated I was being sarcastic. That I don’t think chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth. But it seemed to be as nonsensical as your argument.

And I pulled out my logic text book to review and the argument is presented as a categorical syllogism. It is an AAA -2. It is invalid because there is no distributed middle.




Previously: Unfortunately though, nothing has been proven. The truth of your conclusion is dependent upon the truth of the premises!

All you've done is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.

First off, this is a strawman. When did I claim that this was any sort of proof about anything? It was, at worst, a valid yet ill defined logical statement (again, I did not expect to defend it). Secondly, the soundness of a deductive argument does not depend on whether someone accepts a premise or not, but only if the premise is in fact true. You can deny the premises in this argument all you want:

When someone presents claims and then follows them with "therefore"..that word “therefore” implies a reasoned argument has been presented to arrive at the conclusion which logically follows. And if you present claims the burden of proof is on you to warrant those claims. Anyone can rationally reject those claims on the grounds you’ve not met a burden of proof to support them. Your last sentence “You (I) can deny the premises in this argument all you want” is your attempt to fallaciously shift the burden of proof away from you onto others who question and reject your claims.

(the rest of the post I addressed previously)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I just noticed another post.

You wrote:

The original sentence was:

"If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good."


The statement of mine you keep trying to pawn off as a proof of the existence of God, or whatever you thought I was trying to prove. That is the strawman you are trying to knock down, I never claimed that to be any kind of proof about anything. The post I edited was the one that explained why you not accepting a premise of an argument doesn't make the argument unsound... the only reason I edited it was to add to it, nothing of substance was subtracted, plainly obvious if you read it again. For anyone else who is reading, you should know I already addressed much of what Marg put in her recent response, in the response I posted prior to it. I really don't care if you read it again or not Marg, I've given up on you here, everyone else is bored including me (yawn). If you actually read Aquinas and post a counter argument of your own, maybe I'll read it, otherwise, you aren't worth anymore of my time or threadspace.

I think some of this I already dealt with. You may not have said you were presenting proof but you presented an argument with a conclusion previously. And you used the word "therefore" before your conclusion. In the above the conclusion of your argument is "then truth must lead to God" I appreciate you aren't presenting a proof of a God, but your premise and conclusion incorporate the word God. And in doing so, if you want your argument to be looked upon as a reflection of reality rather than limited to the imaginary, you have the burden of proof to present evidence for God. Otherwise you premises and conclusion are not reliable as truth claims. I thought the Catholic church takes an agnostic position and readily acknowledge that God is unknowable? In otherwords a god belief is based on faith.

---------------------------------------------
marg,

Your analysis here is excellent! While I should like to go through each of your rejoinders and demonstrate the qualitative analysis, the forum format makes that difficult for me to see just how that could be done.

Assertion absent evidence is a primary kind of flawed thinking. You point to that.

You observe:
If I look at your sentence explanation you seem to be saying that anything good in this case truth is good, in this world must come from God, if God is all good.

Further, if one claims God is the source for all, then [i]God is also the source for all not good -- whatever that might be.

You observe:
All you've done (Aquinas) is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.

Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”

Another point on which you are correct:

You observe:
When someone presents claims and then follows them with "therefore"..that word “therefore” implies a reasoned argument has been presented to arrive at the conclusion which logically follows. And if you present claims the burden of proof is on you to warrant those claims.


Again, exactly correct, there is an implicit “reasoned argument.” Yet we have no reason demonstrated. Remember the children’s prayer: God is great, God is good, let us thank him for our food.

Failure to establish God makes the admonition irrelevant. Who prepared the food? Who grew the grain? Who planted the seed? Who grew an animal consumed as food? Or, as I would argue here God is irrelevant. We have a claim, “assertion” absent evidence even for the child in that often memorized prayer. If the child says the prayer from the time he/she is old enough to memorize it, there is severed reasoning or thinking in that child -- possibly for life.

Religious dogma depends on severed reasoning.

Again, excellent analysis on your part.

JAK

[_Gazelam]

Not all truths are of equal importance.

[_JAK]

Well, these are certainly good questions. Well, we will have servants in heaven, so I guess they have to be doing something. That should answer your question about the toilets. Which of course necessarily answers the questions about eating.

Well that certainly does answer a lot of questions. If there are servants cleaning things like toilets, then people must eat in heaven, it means there must be farmers working, stores to sell food, salespeople, money, accountants, delivery people, manufacturing plants, plumbers, houses, all the things which go into making houses, ..what it sounds like David, is that heaven is exactly like earth except it goes on forever.

But how does it work with ages of people...do people go to heaven and stay the same age as when they died..for ever? And you mentioned babies, are babies born in heaven or do people have babies elseswhere and if so where? And then do those people grow up and end up back in heaven? Ihope you don't take offence at my questions. I'm sorry to be so ignorant of this wonderful "happiness" tale, some might call fairy tale but just how is it supposed to work in Mormon ways of thinking?

Good day to you, my fine sister! I see you are still participating here on the boards. Didn't your husband come back home? You must miss him. I know my wife sure misses me when I am away from home, what with all my travels these days.

Yes, heaven is just like earth. You have deduced the grand principle. The only difference between the things we do here and the things we will do there, is that there, we will be doing them all in a celestial manner. Celestial toilet cleaning, celestial horseback riding, skiing, eating, etc. We will be celestially 24 years old, 75 years old, 2 years old, etc.

Can you grasp this principle?

It is beautiful, is it not? Celestial wrinkles, celestial acne, celestial cellulite, celestial muscles, and so on. I think you can see what I'm getting at. Celestial sex is just the half of it. There is so much more! Celestial fairy tales, celestial Disney movies, celestial church meetings. Well, I should stop before you want to just end it and go there today.

In future celestial love, your future celestial apostle in the harness, yeah, even the future celestial Elder David A. Bednar.

--------------------------------------
Nice picture, Bednar. But it does not mask irrational if not insane mentality.

Your disingenuous response to marg is quite an exposure.

JAK