What Do You Think Of This Video?

[NEDRA]

Even though it's more than a year old, this video featuring Elder David Bednar is gaining traction on Facebook and elsewhere on the web. It's very polarizing, even among members of the church. What do you think about it?

[Kenngo1969]

Hmmm ... I don't know what's so controversial or polarizing about this.  I agree with the principles being taught.  The more we do what the Lord would have us do, the more difficult it becomes for the Adversary to entice us, as Elder Bednar might put it, to "his side of the line."  The less we do what the Lord would have us do, the easier it becomes for the Adversary to entice us to his side of the line.  This doctrine has been being taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in one form or another, for generations.  Perhaps there's something objectionable, in the minds of some, about not being invited to sit there, semi-comatose, like bumps on logs, while being lectured to, but I'm not sure such passivity would even work in a more intimate setting such as the one in which Elder Bednar and his audience found themselves.  

[NEDRA]

I agree that's it's a great gospel lesson. It does seem, however, that it would read better on paper than as a real-time, observed object lesson. In particular, I found the interaction with the little boy very, very uncomfortable.

[Kenngo1969]

Again, I'm not sure the passivity you prefer in the audience would work in a more intimate setting such as the one in which this took place. While I'm not attributing this attitude to you specifically, it seems as though the Brethren can't win: on the one hand, we object that it seems as though the only setting in which we ever see them is in a structured, scripted, pre-programmed one in which they give a talk and in which our only role, as the audience, is to listen (if we even do that in a world full of i-Phones, i-Pads, Blackberrys, and so on): the whole "interaction" (such as it is) could be accomplished by substituting a well-designed, well-built, well-programmed robot (with the talk recorded for playback by the robot at the appropriate time) for the designated member of the Brethren, while the audience, likewise, "performs" its expected, pre-programmed role of lapsing into catatonia or coma, being roused from stupor only when its time to go home.  On the other hand, doing anything different, such as inviting audience participation, risks making people uncomfortable.  Not all of us are auditory learners: some of us are visual learners, some of us are experiential learners, and many of us are some combination of the three.

 

You may attribute the young man's discomfort (if that's what it was) to the lesson Elder Bednar was trying to teach, or to the way in which he attempted to involve the young man while doing so.  On the other hand, a good many others might attribute it simply to being asked to participate unexpectedly, and thus being unsure quite what would be expected of him.  Absent any further evidence one way or the other (such as a post-gathering interview further questioning the young man about how he felt about being asked to participate in the manner in which he did and how he felt about what Elder Bednar was trying to teach) neither conclusion is more tenable than the other, and for you to reach the first conclusion rather than the second requires you, with all due respect, to project your own feelings onto the young man: "If I had been asked to participate in the way that young man was, I would've felt ..."

[The Nehor]

I like that in smaller settings apostles tend to have more interactive meetings. Elder Scott is an amazing interactive teacher. He is much more animated in those environments.

[mormonnewb]

Again, I'm not sure the passivity you prefer in the audience would work in a more intimate setting such as the one in which this took place. While I'm not attributing this attitude to you specifically, it seems as though the Brethren can't win: on the one hand, we object that it seems as though the only setting in which we ever see them is in a structured, scripted, pre-programmed one in which they give a talk and in which our only role, as the audience, is to listen (if we even do that in a world full of i-Phones, i-Pads, Blackberrys, and so on): the whole "interaction" (such as it is) could be accomplished by substituting a well-designed, well-built, well-programmed robot (with the talk recorded for playback by the robot at the appropriate time) for the designated member of the Brethren, while the audience, likewise, "performs" its expected, pre-programmed role of lapsing into catatonia or coma, being roused from stupor only when its time to go home.  On the other hand, doing anything different, such as inviting audience participation, risks making people uncomfortable.  Not all of us are auditory learners: some of us are visual learners, some of us are experiential learners, and many of us are some combination of the three.

 

You may attribute the young man's discomfort (if that's what it was) to the lesson Elder Bednar was trying to teach, or to the way in which he attempted to involve the young man while doing so.  On the other hand, a good many others might attribute it simply to being asked to participate unexpectedly, and thus being unsure quite what would be expected of him.  Absent any further evidence one way or the other (such as a post-gathering interview further questioning the young man about how he felt about being asked to participate in the manner in which he did and how he felt about what Elder Bednar was trying to teach) neither conclusion is more tenable than the other, and for you to reach the first conclusion rather than the second requires you, with all due respect, to project your own feelings onto the young man: "If I had been asked to participate in the way that young man was, I would've felt ..."

 

I will deny this if ever asked about it, but I agree with Kenngo1969.  While I am generally the most doubting of Thomases, I found NOTHING inappropriate about the lesson or Elder Bednar's demonstration of it.  I assume that some had problems with the part where Elder Bednar playfully held the young boy as "struggled" to get back to the other side of the line.  I didn't find anything strange or "creepy" about this interaction and I thought it was a good illustration for the principle being taught.  

[Kenngo1969]

I will deny this if ever asked about it, but I agree with Kenngo1969. ...

Oh, my!  What further proof is necessary that the Second Coming is nigh?!  Gird yourselves, Brothers and Sisters!  Get your year's supply ready!  If you have any unresolved spiritual issues, you may want to take them up with your ecclesiastical leaders and/or with your Heavenly Father on your knees in prayer!

[Kenngo1969]

And NEDRA, with all due respect, you're plainly minimizing the most serious issue: what's with all of those maroon-shirted and blue-shirted apostate brethren in the audience?!  Everyone knows that a white dress shirt, for men, is the only shirt upon the face of the whole earth with which the Lord is well pleased!

[NEDRA]

[Senator]

What's with the rug being there in the first place?

 

Hmmm...

[teddyaware]

When I think of those who may find this video in some way objectionable, my mind is carried back to the extremely emotional and extraordinarily intense visit of the Saviour to the ancient Americans. Can't you just imagine how "disturbing," "unsettling" and "traumatizing" it would be to have the Lord of Heaven and Earth descend from the sky (enough to make anyone "freak"), which caused the gathered masses to fall to the earth in paralysis of fear? Only to have the Lord cause the gathered throng to form a queue so as to wait "their turn" to feel "gross" 'disgusting" and horrific wounds the Redeemer was caused to endure when he was slain for the sins of the world -- pretty graphic.

 

I'll bet there were lots of anguished and broken hearted tears shed that day! One wonders if some of the folks who think Elder Bednar went overboard on this video were to see of a video of the appearance of the Lord to the Nephites, would they be exponentially even more offended at the lack of "sensitivity" shown on that occasion. All the talk of suffering and crucifixion for the sins of the world; all the graphic demonstrating of the horrors of human cruelty against the innocent; all the traumatized feelings of the children who should have been spared such emotionally driven intrusions into their world of innocence.

 

Life is a deadly battle between the forces of supreme goodness and those of unspeakable evil. The sooner we wake up to this fact, the sooner we'll be prepared to do what's necessary for the forces of good to win the fight.

 

On to a final point: I've been a member of this Church since 1970 (when I was 20 years old) but is it just my imagination that many in the Church are finding it easier and easier to criticize and even condemn the Lord's anointed? I don't remember it being this way until recently. Was the Church always filled with bold critics of the Church's prophets, seers and revelators and I just didn't notice? Or has there been a sea change that's opened up the floodgates of easily spoken criticism by rank and file members against the highest Church leaders? 

Edited January 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

As someone who is extremely shy, it does bother me that the kid appears to be emotionally unsettled almost as soon as he stood up. I watched it first without sound because I wanted to look at his body language....he is not rigid or resisting so it does not appear to me he is frightened of what Elder Bednar is doing...instead I think Elder Bednar recognised and acknowledged what was going on and that the kid was highly nervous....but do you make the kid feel worse by drawing attention to it or try to help him feel more comfortable so he walks away perhaps not saying that wasnt so hard, but at least 'I survived'. Generally the worse thing for shy kids is to be seen as different and so for him to be rescued, especially by a parent or audience member, would have been much worse in the long run than enduring a few more minutes of pure hell (if that was what was going on with the kid which would be pure projection on my part). And I say the rescuing bit as the parent of someone with severe social anxiety...rescue beforehand where it can be done without drawing attention is okay, during absolutely not, helping with a quick retreat afterwards so decompression can take place usually loved....

What should be very important is the kid had been willing to speak up and ask his question first, so from past experience I immediately go to thinking okay this kid is attempting to be brave and overcome his nervousness and he will just feel worse about it if given an out. I wonder if Elder Bednar, who was apparently a popular teacher and if so probably was prone to interact with his students and not just lecture them, is trying to help him by giving him enough time to get himself under control so he can walk off being proud of himself, plus the physical closeness (not the demostration of holding him back, but the entire time) could be to help the boy not feel so center stage or alone. I definitely remember how much easier it was to be up in front when someone else was there than when I felt isolated from others.

I also wonder how much of the event was scripted. The audience have what looks like a script along with their scriptures, there is the rug which seems overly convenient....and Elder Bednar seems to be prompting him for responses as well. Are these kinds of things generally impromptu or planned (in my experience planned). If the latter, then from the POV of a shy person deviating from the plan would have been much more anxiety producing and long term (and i mean years, even decades) embarrassment for thinking I had ruined it. Assuming there was some practice ahead of time, practice and being on camera is hugely different in anxiety producing so the reaction could have been unexpected...he might even be a usually outgoing kid that was suddenly thrown by his first attack of stage fright. Again it would be better in such a kid's view to carry on then draw too much attention to his emotions by changing the plan.

I don't know if the way it played out was the right decision for that particular kid, but based on my experience with kids, especially shy and nervous ones, for most it would have been (though having a closeup of him being emotional...that i would have left out). As strange as it may seem to some, it would have been worse to stop it. I do know that it is generally impossible to tell until quite sometime after such if it was a positive or negative experience as one emotion may be higher during or immediately afterwards but after a few days the opposite emotion is stronger and colours the experience completely different.

Edited January 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

When I think of those who may find this video in some way objectionable, my mind is carried back to the extremely emotional and extraordinarily intense visit of the Saviour to the ancient Americans. Can't you just imagine how "disturbing," "unsettling" and "traumatizing" it would be to have the Lord of Heaven and Earth descend from the sky (enough to make anyone "freak"), which caused the gathered masses to fall to the earth in paralysis of fear? Only to have the Lord cause the gathered throng to form a queue so as to wait "their turn" to feel "gross" 'disgusting" and horrific wounds the Redeemer was caused to endure when he was slain for the sins of the world -- pretty graphic.

 

I'll bet there were lots of anguished and broken hearted tears shed that day! One wonders if some of the folks who think Elder Bednar went overboard on this video were to see of a video of the appearance of the Lord to the Nephites, would they be exponentially even more offended at the lack of "sensitivity" shown on that occasion. All the talk of suffering and crucifixion for the sins of the world; all the graphic demonstrating of the horrors of human cruelty against the innocent; all the traumatized feelings of the children who should have been spared such emotionally driven intrusions into their world of innocence.

 

Life is a deadly battle between the forces of supreme goodness and those of unspeakable evil. The sooner we wake up to this fact, the sooner we'll be prepared to do what's necessary for the forces of good to win the fight.

 

On to a final point: I've been a member of this Church since 1970 (when I was 20 years old) but is it just my imagination that many in the Church are finding it easier and easier to criticize and even condemn the Lord's anointed? I don't remember it being this way until recently. Was the Church always filled with bold critics of the Church's prophets, seers and revelators and I just didn't notice? Or has there been a sea change that's opened up the floodgates of easily spoken criticism by rank and file members against the highest Church leaders? 

I think some comments I've read elsewhere have said how it seemed he was out of touch with the boy.  Didn't seem like he knew how to interact especially when the boy seemed so sad.  My first time viewing I didn't see anything terrible.  But did notice something about the interaction being somewhat off. ETA:  I've about run out of posts, so Cal and Teddy look up or down.  I don't like that this may have been scripted, or set up, maybe their shirt colors were too.  But it appears now to me that it is.  I don't like that, if that's the case.  Makes me wonder why he couldn't just wing it. And sure hope this isn't to help sell his books, like someone else said outside of this board.  And something else someone said, why didn't he bring up the atonement?

Edited January 22, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I think some comments I've read elsewhere have said how it seemed he was out of touch with the boy. Didn't seem like he knew how to interact especially when the boy seemed so sad. My first time viewing I didn't see anything terrible. But did notice something about the interaction being somewhat off.

I don't think that was sadness but lack of emotional control. Wouldn't be the first kid who cried out of pure nervousness....seen adults do it too, especially after a performance where they release tension that way or are perfectionists and are angry at themselves for missing a note or something.

I felt the interaction was off because the boy wasn't responding to the questions as expected simple though they were. Like I said above, a lot of the participants are holding what appears to be scripts and if so, the boy is likely not being as complete in his answers as was planned and Elder Bednar may be adlibbing to carry more of the burden for him.

Edited January 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I think some comments I've read elsewhere have said how it seemed he was out of touch with the boy.  Didn't seem like he knew how to interact especially when the boy seemed so sad.  My first time viewing I didn't see anything terrible.  But did notice something about the interaction being somewhat off.

I can see how it could be spun that way, but I think the young man was simply feeling the Spirit as he realized, through a graphic personal experience with an Apostle of the Lord, how important it is to stay well into the Lord's side. Learning the lessons of spiritual life can be, and often should be emotional experiences. I would be interested to hear what the boy has to say. Yes the experience was awkward for him, but I'll bet it's one he'll cherish, reflect on and act upon again and again throughout the rest of his life.

Edited January 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

As LDS, we are often taught to focus on our "feelings" or gut reactions to determine whether something is "good" or not. I suspect there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with LDS whose brains are telling them that the video is "good" because it's an apostle speaking, but their gut is telling them that it's bad.

Perhaps a good way to look at this would be to imagine that Elder Bednar isn't Elder Bednar, Apostle in the LDS Church, but instead think if he were a local seminary teacher, or a school teacher. Would that change your reaction to the video?

For me, I find the video hearkens back to when Joseph Smith would teach the saints in the grove outside of Nauvoo in order to promote his latest books (there were copies of the King Follett discourse available for immediate purchase, if I recall), or when Jesus would gather his followers in the countryside and encourage them to by the latest scroll compiling his or the apostles' most recent teachings.

Edited January 22, 2014 by cinepro

[Calm]

I think some comments I've read elsewhere have said how it seemed he was out of touch with the boy.  Didn't seem like he knew how to interact especially when the boy seemed so sad.  My first time viewing I didn't see anything terrible.  But did notice something about the interaction being somewhat off. ETA:  I've about run out of posts, so Cal and Teddy look up or down.  I don't like that this may have been scripted, or set up, maybe their shirt colors were too.  But it appears now to me that it is.  I don't like that, if that's the case.  Makes me wonder why he couldn't just wing it. And sure hope this isn't to help sell his books, like someone else said outside of this board.  And something else someone said, why didn't he bring up the atonement?

If it is scripted, it is a short segment of a longer presentation because there wouldn't have been the need for other members to have scripts. It was probably one question of many set up to develop a certain theme and it would not surprise me in the least to find the Atonement mentioned sometime else in the presentation.

And given the audience mix, it looks like something aimed at families with younger children.

The Church has prepared a number of such videos for use in classes of various ages and FHEs.

[Calm]

The video is on the deseretbook youtube channel. So not church prepared but 'churchish'....

Perhaps it is part of the DVD that goes with this book:

http://deseretbook.com/Increase-Learning-David-Bednar/i/5072000#tab-pd-reviews

From the amazon description:

Publication Date: December 1, 2011

This new interactive book will help you acquire one of the most important skills you ll ever possess: the power to learn. With its unique blend of print, media, and online resources, it provides patterns for spiritual learning that will lead you to understand and act on gospel truths. Learn how to get the answers you need for yourself! With extra-wide margins for recording thoughts and questions, the book invites the reader at every turn to rejoice in the excitement of learning. Plus, it includes a DVD with even more learning resources, including a Q&A session with young adults and an exclusive, in-depth, personal interview with Elder and Sister Bednar!

PS: I have to admit the older I get the younger people look to me...looking at the video again, this is not a Primary age group of kids with parents but YW/YM...but I would have called them youth and not young adult so perhaps I am wrong in connecting this segment to this book/DVD.

PPS: having watched that link for that book, it's not the same, different audience, different setting...so perhaps another book?

PPPS: it is this one...

http://deseretbook.com/Act-Doctrine-David-Bednar/i/5099044

PPPPS: other vids from the book here...

http://seek.deseretbook.com/david-bednar/a

Edited January 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Mystery Meat]

Even though it's more than a year old, this video featuring Elder David Bednar is gaining traction on Facebook and elsewhere on the web. It's very polarizing, even among members of the church. What do you think about it?

 

I thought it was simple, yet profound.

 

 

As LDS, we are often taught to focus on our "feelings" or gut reactions to determine whether something is "good" or not. I suspect there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with LDS whose brains are telling them that the video is "good" because it's an apostle speaking, but their gut is telling them that it's bad.

Perhaps a good way to look at this would be to imagine that Elder Bednar isn't Elder Bednar, Apostle in the LDS Church, but instead think if he were a local seminary teacher, or a school teacher. Would that change your reaction to the video?

For me, I find the video hearkens back to when Joseph Smith would teach the saints in the grove outside of Nauvoo in order to promote his latest books (there were copies of the King Follett discourse available for immediate purchase, if I recall), or when Jesus would gather his followers in the countryside and encourage them to by the latest scroll compiling his or the apostles' most recent teachings.

 

I disagree 100%. See, I have one advantage. I am not on Facebook nor am I reading other message boards. So my first interaction with the video was in this very thread. I think rather then cognitive dissonance it is much more likely that those who didn't like it had their opinions of it prejudiced by others who pointed out reasons why they didn't like it. And then when they watched it they immediately caught hold of what others said and it made them uncomfortable. 

 

I don't know why the boy started to cry, but I think it is just as likely if not more so that he is a sensitive little boy who is in tune with the spirit and his emotions. I saw a woman in the crowd wiping tears from her eyes so maybe there was a spirit there. I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with this video if instead of Elder Bednar it was Kirk Cameron, who does make me a little uncomfortable.

 

I do find it interesting that people are attacking Elder Bednar though. Mark my words, he is the next target of this kind of stuff. I think it is fair to say that he is a little bit of a hardliner, and may be cast out of the same stuff as President Packer (who many also love to criticize). Add to that the fact that he is so young and I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable that he is going to be a leader of the Church for a very long time to come. 

[thatjimguy]

I don't think that was sadness but lack of emotional control. Wouldn't be the first kid who cried out of pure nervousness....

 

 

 

Double this. That kid was about to wet his pants.

 

 

I see zero creepiness here also.

[Calm]

Since this was a commercial venture... it is likely there were auditions for it where the boy did fine. My understanding is that staged church productions usually do as well. This is a studio, everyone is dressed for the part, etc. The kid knew what he was getting into so apparently had made the choice to be there. More than likely got paid a bit...though I suppose they could have gotten enough people who would do it just for the experience.

Whether it was nerves, the Spirit or something else, only he can tell us, obviously my own experiences colour why I think it was nerves...especially given it was a commercial setup and less likely to create an atmosphere of the Spirit given all the technical and logistic stuff that probably interrupted the interaction from time to time.

[Buzzard]

Two things I notice. The youtube video has a little over 13K views, a mere blip in Youtubeland. And all of the negative comments that came up-that I saw-were on Ex-Mormon sites. Not exactly an unbiased sample. 

[Senator]

Since this was a commercial venture... it is likely there were auditions for it where the boy did fine. My understanding is that staged church productions usually do as well. This is a studio, everyone is dressed for the part, etc. The kid knew what he was getting into so apparently had made the choice to be there. More than likely got paid a bit...though I suppose they could have gotten enough people who would do it just for the experience.

 

If this was all scripted, why did E. Bednar act as if he wasn't sure how to "set this up"?

[Calm]

If this was all scripted, why did E. Bednar act as if he wasn't sure how to "set this up"?

I know you are cynical enough to believe that Deseretbook is capable of cheesy ideas...

Or maybe I should be more charitable and speculate that the boy's nervousness threw him for a moment and he lost track of what he was supposed to do.

I am not fond of videos, perhaps someone else can watch the rest and tell us how staged they think it was and how spontaneous were his remarks.

[thatjimguy]

I know you are cynical enough to believe that Deseretbook is capable of cheesy ideas...

Or maybe I should be more charitable and speculate that the boy's nervousness threw him for a moment and he lost track of what he was supposed to do.

I am not fond of videos, perhaps someone else can watch the rest and tell us how staged they think it was and how spontaneous were his remarks.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was staged. Eldar Bednar's response was pretty much flawless. Add to it the fact that a carpet that just happened to be there which was perfect for the example.

 

If it was, it's pretty much par for the course. In class I am reading an interview with one of the apostles about gay marriage. The interview is done by two reporters from the church's own public relations office. It seems that there is a thing about making sure everything is done in a controlled enviroment. I can understand some of the reasons.