Jump to content

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    14,882
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. It might have worked if anything was funny. I did hear some audience chuckling at the beginning so reactions were audible to some extent, but the rest of it was dead silence. It made me wonder if he started trying harder because of that. It was the over the top vocal effects that gave me the tipsy vibe.
  2. If we are talking about possibilities, Emma may matter. But it is irrelevant to the current situation. This is what it boils down to when it comes to excluding women: the church can function without women. The church would cease to exist if there were no men. Women having some vague priesthood is meaningless when we can't even hold a sacrament meeting without a man. I hadn't heard Wilcox before. If he wasn't who he was, my first reaction would have been that he was tipsy.
  3. None of this addresses the day to day restrictions on women in the church. We have spent decades coming up with reasons why it shouldn't matter. I ceertainly used to. But at some point, we need to come to terms with the pragmatic reality of a situation where women are denied ultimate decision making along with access to most offices of the church. It matters. We have a good example of why it matters because of the latest misstep of a male leader. How much longer can we acknowledge how problematic his content was while still denying the underlying issues? We don't need to blow up the church to merely admit we cannot continue with the exclusion and "othering" without damaging the church we love. We don't need to malign the church, anymore than we need to malign Wilcox to point out what was damaging and offensive in his words.
  4. It wouldn't surprise me if he continued to speak on other topics...being very careful to not get near the sexist/racist stuff. However, I don't know who would invite him given other choices, at least for a long time. I suspect higher ranking church people are only surrounded by approving people. As in, they aren't going to go to a "street smart" feminist/Black member to vet their talks. Someone who is familiar with hot topics could point out the problems and give alternatives in minutes. It is so blasted easy. I hope Wilcox will never again call women girls or say "the blacks" for starters, but I'm not encouraged by his nonapology followed by his wife's reaction to the criticism.
  5. We are so trained to be forgiving and not "contentious" it doesn't surprise me, especially when the speaker is doing a one-off event. I would likely consider it to be a bad hair day, bite my lip, and grouse about it in a closed online group. That is why it became more of a concern for me when it became clear this had been happening for years.
  6. He was using the old saw about women (he almost always says girls) having an innate worthiness that men don't come with. That is why they can do stuff in the temple that men need to be ordained for. I wouldn't compare this to Oaks at all.
  7. How would you even do that unless it is a local person? There is no one to sound an alarm to...the best that could happen is he doesn't get invited back if you complain to the organizers. But someone of that rank wouldn't be back anyway. He would be off to the next gig. I am reading quite a few accounts of his giving the same talk for years.....also accounts of what a wonderfully nice person he is.
  8. There is a huge distinction between being "taught" something and hearing something at church by a random member. Of course the earlier years were full of this stuff. Of course things are still said. But I've been in wards in three states the past few years and there were very few times there wasn't some correction given after an unfortunate statement by someone. That is less likely if it is a talk, because there isn't audience feedback, but in classes it is quite consistent. It only takes one member to put a stop to most of the racist/sexist claptrap because it isn't considered acceptable anymore. It is increasingly rare to not have at least one member doing it. You are wanting to use times when it was acceptable to say awful things so stop it.
  9. The church is going to have to do something if this hits national news and it doesn't seem to be dying down. This puts the church in the position of having to do a much more comprehensive apology/correction than has been offered....or to slide him out of view, like the Randy Bott retirement.
  10. I've seen enough reports of him giving the same talk that I don't think it can be pinned on him going rogue. I suppose it is possible organizers had merely heard he gave great talks or something....but usually speaker names only come up because someone has heard that great talk.
  11. I hope it creates a much needed conversation. We can't afford to keep these sorts of ideas even if we only trot them out occasionally. I was particularly disappointed with his attitude towards women's concerns, or, as he put it "girls."
  12. This cut off for me after about 11 min, , but what I did hear is beyond description awful. He is trying very hard to be cool or hip or whatever but there is a noticeable lack of laughter. He mocked concerns over the priesthood ban, he mocked women, he demeaned other religions. And that was just 11 minutes. The problem with a brief apology is that only works if it was a single gaffe sort of thing. This was an ongoing assault. Here is a transcript from a FAIR conference talk of his on grace which hopefully redeems him somewhat. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2018/have-you-been-saved-by-grace
×
×
  • Create New...