Elder Bednar Spring 2013 Conference Address -- Grace?

I wrestled with the talk given by Elder Bednar in the recent General Conference.   It was presented in his usual “take-no-prisoners” and forthright way.  But here was my struggle with him and with his content, and what I and others surely felt as we listened to him.

To begin, I understand that one of the purposes of the leadership of the Church is to teach doctrine, to lay out for the members and for the world what is that doctrine.  I understand that in the societal environment in which we live, it is felt that there must be no equivocating as to that doctrine and to its practice.  I sense the idea is to contrast black and white doctrine as opposed to pervasive value and moral relativism.  I understand the need to establish a non-relativistic bar—a high bar—for the blessing of the members of the Church.  I get the idea with these kinds of talks; after all, although I never have been a leader of the Church on a general, worldwide level, I have been/am a leader on a local level, and as such was/am expected to proclaim the doctrines as they are presented by Church leadership and found in Scripture.

That said, the doctrine that he spoke of in this address was The Law of Chastity, and maybe in his world it is very black and white.  He was very clear and succinct about that Law.  But what I wrestled with was how he portrayed it.  Both the Law itself and how it was treated seemed very much like the “Law of Moses.”  In other words, what I felt about his presentation of the Law of Chastity was that he was forthrightly stating “here is the bar, REACH IT, and I hope for your sake that you can.” “It’s the Law, and you should obey it.”  I felt like I must obey the Law by doing a, b, and c, and reach what may be that very high bar without regard to where I am, or I will certainly go to hell.  

That is not to say that it wouldn’t be to my advantage to obey the Law, but his talk felt (and left me) cold.  I wondered if he or any in his family had struggled with it.  My perception was that he portrayed a God who is up in His heaven waiting for me to not live the Law so that He can damn me.  Elder Bednar threw a “bone” to any who had not reached the high bar by informing them that they can always go to their ecclesiastical leader and confess their sin.  But what happens if one feels so much guilt or shame that he doesn’t know if he can drag himself to the authority?  What happens if one feels so worthless because of his sin(s) that there is no hope for him?  The talk made me feel that such a person just needed to pray a little harder, read scriptures a little longer, confess to the authority, and just “buck up!”

I understand that the rants above are my perception of Elder Bednar’s talk and not likely the intent of his talk.  My perceptions are colored by my life experiences.   I also understand that Church leadership must emphasize different aspects of the Gospel message depending upon their audience.

For example, there are many in the Church who believe that repentance is a kind of Sunday activity, that their actions while not perfect are not so bad and feel some pride and arrogance in that concept.  They likely need to hear messages about consequences of continued disobedience.  They may know about Jesus Christ, but may not necessarily know and their own need of His atonement.

There are others in the Church who because of their own struggles with themselves, with their children, with what life has dealt them, need to hear messages of Christ’s grace and mercy.  They know that they are imperfect and are looking to God for support, solace, and salvation.  (I believe that many Protestants and Evangelicals hear what sinners they are every Sunday and as such place their focus on a “saving Jesus,” as opposed to an LDS Jesus that would seem to emphasize being perfect in performance and works.)

For the former, a message about grace and mercy may be misplaced and ultimately dismissed.  For the later, hearing about what they aren’t or may or may not be doing might fortify their belief in their inability to be “perfect.”   Since I fall in the “later” group, I wrestled with Elder Bednar’s talk.  I prefer the hopeful, loving but forthright talks given by someone like Elder Holland.

In my opinion, if Jesus Christ were to have given Elder Bednar’s talk, it would have been a different talk.  It would have had more grace, more compassion, along with the doctrine. 

I thought of the woman brought to Christ in adultery who the Pharisees wanted to stone.  He could have given her a treatise on the Law of Chastity, the law that the Mosaic Law forbade in no uncertain terms that the Pharisees hypocritically professed to believe, and which was punishable by stoning.  Instead, He said, “go thy way and sin no more.”  She knew that she had done wrong, and He knew that she had likely condemned herself. In His few words, it was as if He said, “what you did was wrong and you likely knew that it was wrong:  I’m not going to preach to you; I want you to be happy and you won’t be happy if you continue this behavior, so don’t keep doing it.”

But then, I am sure there are people who heard his talk and thought it was wonderful and just what they needed (wanted?) to hear.  Not me or others who need grace.