Preserving Religious Freedom in Time of Crisis: Remarks by Elder Bednar

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Of course two wrongs do not make it right. I never implied such. I was pointing out the double standard that has become once it was politicized.

And what is your solution if they refuse to enforce in certain situations due to feared political fallout?

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You keep acting as though Elder Bednar had claimed there should be no limit to religious freedom. He did not make such a claim. 

I am not acting that way.  I am disagreeing with what he thinks those limits should be - particularly deeming church workers as "essential".  I also disagree that religious rights are preeminent and thus should be protected above all other rights. 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Risk of human life, how much risk is acceptable? It is terrible to meet at church but the risk at Walmart because it is lower is acceptable?

Since people need to eat, shopping is necessary and there are not practical alternatives to replace it. So yes, that is when one needs to compare risk factors and lower risk necessary activities win out imo over high risk, very important, but most will not suffer to the level of starvation or at least malnutrition by missing church activities, even if this creates significant spiritual shortages in their lives. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

It is not a strawman. Elder Bednar in his statement speaks of the secular freedoms and religious freedoms are being more harshly dealt with than others. (I paraphrased).

 Most secular businesses were also deemed non-essential and received equal treatment to religion.   Because some secular interests may have received preference they didn't deserve (while most did deserve the designation “essential”), doesn't justify religion receiving the same undeserved special treatment.  Two wrongs doesn't make a right, as Calm said. 

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Then your reasons and Elder Bednar's are the same. You advocate in that sentence a more balance and fair approach should be considered. Elder Bednar is wanting religious freedom to be elevated to its proper importance just as secular freedoms have been. He is definitely not publicly recommending and supporting putting lives at risk (advocating). If anything Elder Bednar is advocating the important role religious freedom has in law (it was an address to the law school btw). 

He is advocating for religious workers to be considered essential.  That would be unfair preferential treatment and place others at unreasonable risk. 

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, shocking that an Apostle of the Lord is emphasising the importance and the role religion should have.

Emphasizing the importance is one thing.  Giving it a preeminent position above all other rights is beyond the mark. 

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Pogi, love you bro, I'm just saying don't put too much emphasis on Elder Bednar placing religion paramount over other fundamental rights.

I love you too!  However, his emphasis on religious liberty above all other rights is his justification for preferential treatment, such as considering it "essential" in an emergency pandemic situation.  I simply can't agree with that conclusion or justification. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Risk of human life, how much risk is acceptable? It is terrible to meet at church but the risk at Walmart because it is lower is acceptable?

Btw, I don’t think it is terrible to meet at church. If certain precautions were taken***, I would have no problem with it. 
 

***masks required as in not optional and they are not getting through the door and must leave if they want to remove them, small numbers, short time (20 minutes for now, to be extended when more results known from similar situations),  no singing, social distancing. 

My problem with church is lack of enforcement when I know there is a huge part of the population in my area not taking even basic precautions.  So my husband who is taking precautions even though he thinks they are unnecessary can’t go because even if we trust him, we don’t many sitting in the pews without masks for an hour long service and shaking hands and giving hugs before and afterwards...after all they know they are not infected!

Baptisms small group...one child observing per adult as they need supervision to keep the rules , no talks, no singing, person giving blessing wears mask and disinfects hands well...am thinking chlorinated water for the two of them takes care of most of the issues except face to face breathing.  No congregating around the font to watch, just two witnesses. Out of the water, masks for all and thorough hand washing or sanitizer for those involved in confirmation. No hugs  or handshakes except between homemates.

For other faiths modify as needed, small groups with masks, no singing, only one person chanting for full service if possible. Appoint one person for as large an area as possible who has volunteered to do essential services take the risk to deal with known infected who self quarantines away from anyone when not working with them.  (Same restrictions as medical personnel).  There are likely other reasonable adaptations if limits will be respected. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[Anijen]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

The point is not to eliminate risk.  But to mitigate.  Risk vs benefit.  What is the risk of shutting down all grocery stores (even temporarily), or quarantining their workers, vs the risk of deeming them essential? 

It is not terrible to meet at church.  You are missing the point.  Risk vs benefit.  People are not going to unreasonably suffer from a temporary closure of church in the same way they would from a temporary closure of grocery stores or hospitals, etc.  The spirit is resilient through even months of church closures.  The physical body is not quite as resilient without food or medical needs. 

Yes, yes, I agree with all of this. I am not missing your point. However, I am trying to make the point that social distancing rules were implemented in stores and could have been in church. Churches were shut down and in some cities arrests were threatened and some arrests were made for church attendance (in cars no less). 

Why not allow the same social distancing rules to church's?  Saying words like degree of risk or mitigation, or risk v. benefit is all fine and good, but it does not take away the risk completely. IOW, are you not saying  if we can save even one death because of banning church it is reasonable, but if one death occurs from a Walmart contact it is acceptable?

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not that worried about the high risk or not person making the choice for themselves to expose themselves to possible infection. If they want to risk infection and death, up to them. 

Exactly my point. Thank you.

 

Quote

 

It is when their choices impact others who have no choice in determining whether the virus enters their vicinity that I am concerned with.
 

I feel the same way about drunk driving. If the only person at danger is the drunk, then if they want to excuse them based on diminished capacity so they get out there and do it again, so be it.  It that isn’t what happens. The drunk is driving a lethal weapon and is a threat to others.  Such dangers to others is usually easily recognized, but the conversation about Covid and liberties is so often framed in my experience as the right for someone to assume the risk for themselves when it is much, much more.

 

I think, I get what you are saying here. My answer is that a drunk chooses to drink, chooses to drink more, then chooses to drive, thus, chooses to risk the lives of others. With Covid and people they might not know they are carriers of the virus because they had/have no symptoms (asystematic). This is different from your DUI scenario. True, a responsible person could say I don't think I have been infected, I am healthy,  So I choose to stay home from church services because I don't want to risk killing someone.

That is different from the not free agency of the example of the government forcing me to stay away from church because I might infect someone. I am with you, let it be up to us if we want to attend or not. Even if I am at high risk I can choose to stay home, thus avoiding being infected and at the same time I did not deny a right to attend church to someone else.

 

Quote

I am concerned about the possibly infected, much more likely to be low risk person thinking it is okay to be casual with the rules, skip the mask because they just know they’re not sick, passing it on to my husband,

Yes, that is very understandable. But the high risk should stay at home to ascertain their best advantages of staying healthy than mandating all stay home because we just don't know who has been infected. Additionally, after the two months of isolation even if Mr.Dork had it, Mr.Dork is now past the contagion time and from all the too many expert reports I have heard, read, studied they are not going to give the pandemic anew. I have even read expert reports that there is actual encouragement for those who have had it and after they are well they should be out in public because although they cannot pass the virus on, but they can pass an antibody that would increase herd immunity. I am no expert in disease and a lot of my knowledge of this is coming from CNN, MSNBC, and Dr. Fauchi, or Governor Cuomo so there is that.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not acting that way.  I am disagreeing with what he thinks those limits should be - particularly deeming church workers as "essential".  I also disagree that religious rights are preeminent and thus should be protected above all other rights. 

Where did he say they should be “protected above all other rights”? I didn’t get that from his talk. Perhaps I missed it.
 

He did say that no other right is more important, but that’s not the same thing. 
 

Maybe you’re going by the word “paramount,” but that could mean that freedom of religion, together with the other freedoms that are as important, is paramount.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Why not allow the same social distancing rules to church's?

Not everyone abides by social distancing when shopping, but they also aren’t sitting in one spot for an hour or more. Length of time of exposure makes a big difference.

Enforcement is also highly unlikely if someone breaks the rule at church.  At least in restaurants people are trained to follow waiters’ request and understand there are rules that will be enforced or the establishment will be shut down for public health reasons.  That kind of thinking doesn’t happen at church from what I see.  People obey rules at church because they see it as socially acceptable and right now lots of people see not following the guidelines as socially acceptable.

It may end up being safer to go to church when there is a higher number of infections out there because people will have by then known someone ill or even died and the actual risk become real to them.  They will realize they can’t know for a certainty they aren’t infected in most cases and neither can the person in the next pew...at least until we know about and can test for immunity.

Risk goes up right now the longer one is in one place. 
 

Quote

IOW, are you not saying  if we can save even one death because of banning church it is reasonable, but if one death occurs from a Walmart contact it is acceptable?

Not me.  I am thinking of the fact it appears that when people get infected at church, a high percentage of people there get infected and carry it into their homes and elsewhere. 
 

And I am more concerned with long term damage than death. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you’re going by the word “paramount,” but that could mean that freedom of religion, together with the other freedoms that are as important, is paramount.

“Freedom of religion is paramount among our fundamental rights”.  No “together with“ there.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Anijen]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what is your solution if they refuse to enforce in certain situations due to feared political fallout?

Not to ban church or any assembly (any church no matter the religion), but that churches and other type of assembly maintain acceptable social distancing. It is possible. Yes, I realize there will be idiots who do not comply, but there will always be idiots who do not comply even if we are banned from assembly or from church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

People don’t congregate for an hour or more in Walmart. Nor do they need to talk to each other.  If length of time is the third key value with masks and distance (see Pogi’s stuff for most up to date info and remember he is one of those seeing where people are getting infected, so ideal placement to rate recommendations imo), then that puts Walmart and church gatherings in a different category. 

What I got from Elder Bednar’s talk, though, is that faith groups are being inequitably restricted even when they are taking all reasonable precautionary measures. He gave as examples the Catholic priest who was forbidden to give last rites and our own church that was forbidden in the same state from performing baptisms. 
 

Another example would be the churchgoers who were fined $500 each for sitting in their cars in the parking lot with the windows rolled up listening to services on their car radios. That’s pretty egregious right there. I hope the plaintiffs prevail in that lawsuit. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Anijen]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since people need to eat, shopping is necessary and there are not practical alternatives to replace it. So yes, that is when one needs to compare risk factors and lower risk necessary activities win out imo over high risk, very important, but most will not suffer to the level of starvation or at least malnutrition by missing church activities, even if this creates significant spiritual shortages in their lives. 

Yes we all need to eat. 

We all need to be able to pay for the food so that we can eat. Last time I was at Walmart there was no lane for people who couldn't pay. Yet, many states allowed Walmart to stay open, but the lone barber or salon could not, the carpet cleaner could not, the small store could not. Why? Because they were deemed non-essential. Is not the ability to earn enough wages to pay rent, mortgage or for food essentiel? There are many churches with paid ministries whose minister/pastoral salaries are dependant upon the numbers coming to their church. They too need to buy food etc. There are those whose souls are so wracked with pains of past sin that they feel only confession or consultation will help. Is not their mental health essential?

To some, not going to church is more than a risk of suffering spiritual shortage.

[longview]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not everyone abides by social distancing when shopping, but they also aren’t sitting in one spot for an hour or more. Length of time of exposure makes a big difference.

So why was the police harassing the congregants and issuing $500 fines when they were hermetically sealed within their cars?  It should have NOT mattered how long they sat in their cars listening to the pastor standing at the church porch and broadcasting over the radio?  It seemed awfully close to government thuggery.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Anijen said:

e. I am with you, let it be up to us if we want to attend or not.

That is not what I am saying because imo going to church at this point is in essence going to drink and drive drunk where the risk is even higher because others can and will stop you if you are drunk where they can’t see if you are infected, so won’t act to prevent you from infecting others.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

“Freedom of religion is paramount among our fundamental rights”.  No “together with“ there.

 

 

 

 

Did you read the contextual material I quoted for that subheading? It doesn’t appear you are giving it due consideration. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

even when they are taking all reasonable precautionary measures.

Please show me the reasonable precautions and how such can be enforced on a church once they are allowed to gather?

Are these churches requiring their members to wear masks?  Keep meetings to less than 30 minutes?  No signing, no handshakes, no hugs?  Are they requiring members to leave if they break the rules?  
 

Are they okay with city inspectors visiting meetings and shutting them down in the middle if they see people there without masks or time goes longer?

[Calm]

Comparing church meetings to shopping or even restaurants is inaccurate in terms of social dynamics that affect infection rates. 
 

Church meetings are closer to indoor sport events, people congregating in one place for an extended length of time. If singing, comparable to shouting for one’s team. Lots of body contact normally.  Hard to enforce many borderline rules (extreme ones like violence sure, but spilling on your neighbour or yelling inappropriately won’t get someone kicked out just as shaking hands and not wearing masks isn’t getting people kicked out of churches in most cases I am guessing based on what I hear. 
 

Much more important in value imo, but spiritual value has no meaning for a virus. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

On 6/17/2020 at 12:08 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar warned there is a danger in limiting a religious organization’s right to gather. “Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter. And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom.”

As one of the watchmen on the tower who has a duty to give us a warning, I appreciate him telling us what he sees.  There is a danger that we will scatter if we do not gather.  So, sometime soon, I hope we will be able to safely gather together again.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please show me the reasonable precautions and how such can be enforced on a church once they are allowed to gather?

Are these churches requiring their members to wear masks?  Keep meetings to less than 30 minutes?  No signing, no handshakes, no hugs?  Are they requiring members to leave if they break the rules?  
 

Are they okay with city inspectors visiting meetings and shutting them down in the middle if they see people there without masks or time goes longer?

Elder Bednar clearly described the last rites scenario. The parishioner did not have COVID-19. Both would have worn masks. The priest was to administer the holy oil with a swab. 
 

Baptismal services could have been conducted with as few as four people involved. If it was a family baptism, all four could have been from the same household. 
 

And please tell me what harm could have come from congregants sitting in their cars in the parking lot with the windows rolled up listening to the sermon on their car radios.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not what I am saying because imo going to church at this point is in essence going to drink and drive drunk where the risk is even higher because others can and will stop you if you are drunk where they can’t see if you are infected, so won’t act to prevent you from infecting others.

Emphasis mine from the quote above.

Yes, but the drunk is choosing to get drink, choosing to drink enough to get drunk, then choosing to drive home. Those were all conscience decisions to the risk of others. I do not know of a single person who knowingly put others at risk. I do know of a couple in our ward who had Covid and both have since recovered and both have chosen to stay home because even though they have recovered they do not want to put people at risk or they do not want to incite panic (or both).

You might reply; what about the person coming to church who has it but doesn't know it. Your portion I bolded above. All I can say is; we don't know what we don't know. However, after imposing self isolation upon myself and not being in public contact (face-to-face) for nearly two months, I can say with I bet 99.99 percent of accuracy that I am not a danger to anyone if I go to church and being that I don't know what I don't know, I am willing to risk that others are not exposing me to anything either. If they are I might catch it, I might not, if I catch it I might develop symptoms, I might not. If I develop symptoms, I might get sick and or even die, or I might recover. I will not blame them, heck I wont even blame myself. I would be grateful I wasn't forced to comply to a draconian, politicized, overkill of a law because of something I or somebody else knew.

Again where does it stop, where is the line drawn? If we allow such fear of "what they can't see," or what we can't see to justify making the rules that is a place I'd fight to not be a part of.

[Calm]

Personally, I believe Catholic priests and others in similar roles in other faiths should be allowed contact with those ill to perform baptisms and other rites that provide eternal reassurance in the beliefs of members. Those performing such rites need to follow the rules and verify on the levels of other professionals coming into constant contact with the infected. 
 

I do believe that is a religious right that should be vigorously defended.
 

Meeting together in large groups...no. I haven’t heard of any faith where not doing so risks their eternal well being without remedy available. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Bednar clearly described the last rites scenario. The parishioner did not have COVID-19. Both would have worn masks. The priest was to administer the holy oil with a swab. 

See my post...I have no problem with defending those types of religious rights, though even with those there must be some give.  Enforced restrictions need to be accepted by believers.  (Burial rites need to be rigidly safe for example.)
 

It is framing the question of religious liberty in broad terms, as well as here in this thread and elsewhere justifying freedoms by comparing to situations they shouldn’t be compared with. Much of Elder Bednar’s comments I agree with. I think there should have been greater care to define where the line is in defending and compromise though.
 

When government starts allowing indoor sporting events with large numbers, then I will have a hissy fit about churches not being able to meet together. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, yes, I agree with all of this. I am not missing your point. However, I am trying to make the point that social distancing rules were implemented in stores and could have been in church. Churches were shut down and in some cities arrests were threatened and some arrests were made for church attendance (in cars no less). 

Why not allow the same social distancing rules to church's?  Saying words like degree of risk or mitigation, or risk v. benefit is all fine and good, but it does not take away the risk completely. IOW, are you not saying  if we can save even one death because of banning church it is reasonable, but if one death occurs from a Walmart contact it is acceptable?

Are you suggesting that all shut-downs were an unreasonable violation, or that church's were singled out and unfairly picked on?  If you agree that some shut-downs are justified, how do you justify that?  Don't we have to designate some things as essential (remain open with conditions), and others non-essential (close with limits)?    If your argument is that everything should have remained open, I disagree, but that is a derail.  If your argument is that some things should remain open and some things were rightly closed, then you have to justify why church's are essential.  Sure, churches could have followed the same social distancing rules as grocery stores, but if they are not essential, then why not allow the same social distancing rules and keep movie theaters, rock concerts, salons, swimming pools, and other non-essential organizations open?

58 minutes ago, Anijen said:

IOW, are you not saying  if we can save even one death because of banning church it is reasonable, but if one death occurs from a Walmart contact it is acceptable?

No, that is not at all what I am saying.   If you agree with everything I said about risk vs benefit, as you say, this should make perfect sense.  If keeping everything open is too risky, and shutting everything down is too risky, then we have to do a risk vs benefit assessment of each sector.  Will temporarily closing-down the business bring unreasonable harm to the community as a whole?  Do the benefits of the business to the community outweigh the risks of keeping it open?  Some are easy.  Movie-theaters, for example.  Clearly the risk to the community outweighs the benefit when considering a short-term shut-down in a life-threatening pandemic situation   Hospitals and grocery stores?  Also easy!  Clearly the benefits they provide outweigh the risks to the community when considering a short-term shut-down.   Church?  For me?  Easy!  Clearly the risk far outweighs the benefit when considering a short-term shut-down.  For that reason, they are considered "non-essential".  If you think they should be considered essential, then you have to justify it in a risk vs benefit assessment.  Why is the benefit they provide to the community greater than the risk when considering a temporary, short-term shut-down in a life-threatening pandemic situation?  Why should their workers be allowed to continue to work at church even if they are on quarantine and high-risk to the community?  I am not saying there is no benefit, but it seems beyond clear to me that the risks far, far outweigh the benefits.  We are not talking about closing church forever here.  We are not restricting people from praying and worshiping in their homes or small groups.  I don't know of a single religion that would be unreasonably impacted by a short-term shut-down in comparing the potential toll on health and life.

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 

Meeting together in large groups...no. I haven’t heard of any faith where not doing so risks their eternal well being without remedy available. 

That’s not the only consideration in determining the value of congregating as a faith-based group. Elder Bednar said the following about the right to gather:

Religious Freedom and the Right to Gather with the Faithful

One key realization is that for most faith communities, gathering for worship, ritual, and fellowship is essential; it is not merely an enjoyable social activity.

For example, gathering is an especially powerful element in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A central mission of the Church is to gather together the scattered family of Abraham—and indeed all who are willing—to the ordinances and covenants of the Savior’s gospel. Through that gathering, we believe God will establish a people who are of one heart and one mind, who dwell together in righteousness and peace, and who love and care for each other so completely that no poor, spiritually or physically, are found among them.[v]

In ancient and modern scripture, the Lord calls such a people and such a place “Zion.” Zion is where “the pure in heart”[vi] dwell. And it is where God Himself can dwell in the midst of His people.[vii] We believe that such a gathering is essential before the Messiah returns again.[viii]

This vision of gathering has been a driving motivation for the Latter-day Saints since the Church’s earliest days and inspired our members to assemble first in Ohio and then in Missouri and Illinois. At each stage, government and mobs combined to persecute and scatter our members until they eventually found a place of gathering outside the United States—in what later became the state of Utah.

This vision has inspired our building of holy temples, where through sacred ordinances and covenants we eternally gather our families to God.

And this vision continues to inspire Latter-day Saints to gather together in their local congregations to worship God and His Son Jesus Christ, partake of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and strengthen, serve, and fellowship each other.[ix]

Being in each other’s presence is a unique and irreplaceable experience. In Christianity, the God of the Old Testament came to His people in the flesh. Jesus Christ touched people, embraced them, healed them, ministered to them. And we believe we are called to do as He did.[x] He taught, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”[xi]

Of course, Latter-day Saints are hardly alone in this need to gather as a religious community. Our Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical friends gather for mass, baptisms, confirmations, sermons, and myriad other religious purposes.

Our Jewish friends gather for worship in their synagogues.

Our Muslim friends gather in their mosques.

Our friends in the Buddhist, Sikh, and other faith traditions likewise have sacred places to gather and worship together.

Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter.

And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've heard that concern expressed by a few leaders in my stake, and there may be some truth to it. Only time will tell. But the vibe I'm picking up is the exact opposite. I've had people who might have attended church twice last year asking me when we'll be allowed to meet again. I fully expect our numbers to stay the same (though perhaps with new faces replacing a few old ones?) or to increase.

I've been pretty surprised by some of the most devout members I know (my parents included) expressing a reluctance to attend regular church again. And it's not because of concern for the virus. They like home church. That may end up being a pyric victory for the church.

I've been absolutely baffled by the lack of engagement of the local leadership in my area.

As Duncan put it...

Quote

We haven't heard tickety-boo about returning to church

Not only have they not had any kind of outreach during the months of home church, except 1 statement and 1 additional reminder email that members need the Bishops approval before administering the sacrament in their home...EVERY SINGLE TIME, but there has been "state of the ward/stake" kind of messaging. There haven't been any kind of updates about plans, or hopes for how things will change or when members may return to church. There has been NO leadership from our leadership. It's quite sad in my opinion and a huge missed opportunity.

I find Elder Bednar's comments to place the blame at the foot of government for things the church decided to do on its own. Not only did the church cancel services prior to government lockdown in my area, not only did my local leadership cancel ministering assignments during the shut down, not only did the church discourage if not outright ban online meetings so members could stay connected, but the church and its leaders have provided very little, if any words of comfort, encouragement, or direction. Different localities may have different experiences but mine has been abysmal. And when I compare LDS church response to the response of other local churches, it's embarrassing.

So I have no doubt Bednar and the brethren are concerned that the general population is devaluing the value of organized religion but I think the church is primarily to blame for that. We have done home church for months with nary a word from ward/stake leadership and we're doing fine. They've kind of illustrated that many members don't need centralized/organized church, or that those needs can be met in other ways. The church is more and more irrelevant in peoples lives and there's a reason for that.

Also, lets not forget that Bednar is likely very upset about the recent SCOTUS decision regarding LGBTQ protections which the church always takes as an attack on religious liberties.