Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fortunately, most of the non-LDS Christian world ignores what the LDS church says.

He won't be disciplined. He said what has been taught for decades, he just didn't get the message about what the PR effects of saying it out loud might be. Frankly, I think it's a very good thing that there is so much uproar within the LDS church about this talk. It means that many members, even very faithful members, aren't willing to put up with this kind of ideology. And outside the LDS faith, no one cares about Wilcox or what he says.

 

If Wilcox is just saying what he’s been taught, why would so many members who have been taught the same thing suddenly be in an uproar?

[2BizE]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Brad Wilcox’s talk was not flawless, and the portion about the priesthood ban was ill considered, as he himself has acknowledged. But the hysterical pearl clutching from the likes of Dehlin signals to me that he is not altogether off the mark with the talk taken as a whole. 
 

Bu the way, he’s not a General Authority. Members of the Young Men general presidency are not General Authorities. 

What does it mean that Brad Wilcox is not a general authority? He is certainly called by the FP to represent them and the church.  He is also on this list of General Authorities and Officers:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders/list?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If Wilcox is just saying what he’s been taught, why would so many members who have been taught the same thing suddenly be in an uproar?

Because their beliefs have changed. They no longer believe everything that was fed to them. They recognize the errors in previous teachings and have adapted. 

Are you suggesting that the things Wilcox said in this fireside are unique beliefs of Wilcox and have not been taught within the church?

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Person 1: "It's such a shame that Black Americans had to ride in the back of the bus until the 1960's"

Person 2: "Perhaps what should focus on is the fact that White people couldn't ride in buses at all until they were invented in the late 1800's"

?????

Yah. I was very surprised by the way he verbalized a lot of his thoughts. 😳 I suspect he is wishing he had expressed himself differently. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

What does it mean that Brad Wilcox is not a general authority? He is certainly called by the FP to represent them and the church.  He is also on this list of General Authorities and Officers:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders/list?lang=eng

It's a semantic game, cashing in on the difference between General "Authority" and General "Officers" of the church. Many people within the church consider the titles to be equal but they aren't. You will find female "General Officers" meaning they hold a General calling with responsibility for the church but are NOT "authorities".

I'd be curious to hear peoples thoughts about the practical differences between the two titles, but to an average on-looker, it could seem that there is a separation precisely because of situations like this. It may be easier to disapprove or disavow comments from an "officer" versus an "authority".

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But because it is so innocuous, there are a lot of well made and faithful criticisms out there about it.  That he repeats it signals to me he hasn’t made an effort to look at criticism in any depth.

Having said that, I know an educated and informed man who still uses this as his go to explanation even after being challenged on it and given detailed explanations of why it doesn’t work by other Saints.  He seems to have a blind spot on why it is problematic, so it isn’t automatic that it means uninformed and I probably shouldn’t make that assumption.  People can get locked into ideas and not be able to question or even see their own assumptions.  No doubt I have my own blind spots.

The thing is, this is a theological problem that we have and there is no good answer to it.  So people either humbly admit that there is no good answer or they come up with bad ones.  We do this same thing with other things.

[katherine the great]

14 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

What does it mean that Brad Wilcox is not a general authority? He is certainly called by the FP to represent them and the church.  He is also on this list of General Authorities and Officers:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders/list?lang=eng

I think of him as a general authority. But are the members of the general young women’s presidency considered general authorities? Maybe they should be but I don’t think they are. I’m not sure it’s really a very well defined term.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The thing is, this is a theological problem that we have and there is no good answer to it.  So people either humbly admit that there is no good answer or they come up with bad ones.  We do this same thing with other things.

Totally agree with you on this.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I think of him as a general authority. But are the members of the general young women’s presidency considered general authorities? Maybe they should be but I don’t think they are. I’m not sure it’s really a very well defined term.

There is big Authority, which is a calling and little authority, which is a synonym for spokesperson or representative of the church.  And big g General, which is a title and little g general which is a description of church wide.  NonGeneral Authorities can be and are viewed imo as general authorities or official representatives/general church leaders with authority churchwide (meaning in all church units they are called to lead)…why else are they presented as such to the Church in General Conference and on the Church website:

Quote

The leaders of the worldwide Church are known as General Authorities and General Officers.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/global-leadership-of-the-church?lang=eng

Just because we speak of one Prophet doesn’t mean we negate the existence of other prophets in our church authorities as the Apostles are officially prophets.  So just because we have a title of General Authority doesn’t mean it is wrong to use the description of general authority for those who hold authority in general ways in the Church.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because their beliefs have changed. They no longer believe everything that was fed to them. They recognize the errors in previous teachings and have adapted. 

Are you suggesting that the things Wilcox said in this fireside are unique beliefs of Wilcox and have not been taught within the church?

So all of us active members who don't agree with Wilcox's talk now eschew what we have been taught?  That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.  And I've never been taught to think about women or other Christian religions in the way that Wilcox presented them.  I've heard plenty of members (and I've heard ex-members in a similar vein when talking about members or other religious people) say that kind of stuff outside of church but I've never heard it taught in church in any kind of an official way. 

When it has been presented in lessons by a teacher or member of the class, I've seen the pushback be immediate.  It's probably not like that in all wards but it has been in the ones that I've been a member of, when it has happened (which hasn't been very often thankfully).

I think that Wilcox was doing that thing that we all do sometimes (which doesn't make it right) where we get a little snarky or try to be a little too funny describing someone or something that we don't agree with, when we are with our 'friends' and we don't think the other person will ever hear us.  Only it was completely inappropriate because 1) of the venue and because 2) of who he is and who he represents and because 3) I think that kind of venting is only acceptable in private when it's followed up by acknowledgement that that's exactly what you were doing--venting--and you acknowledge it's a biased representation coming from a place of frustration.

The ideas and doctrines behind what Wilcox said (most of them anyway) are based on things taught in church but the way that he interpreted them and presented them are not the doctrines or teachings of the church.  I have been a member for 30+ years, lived in 7 different states, and double that many wards, and his caricatures of women and other Christian religions have not been taught in the church to me during that time.

But at the same time, I do hope that this whole situation serves as a wake up call for people who have expressed those kinds of sentiments at church, either as a teacher going rogue, or in a class making a comment, or who harbor them in their hearts.  Because they obviously exist and we need to do better.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because their beliefs have changed. They no longer believe everything that was fed to them. They recognize the errors in previous teachings and have adapted. 

Are you suggesting that the things Wilcox said in this fireside are unique beliefs of Wilcox and have not been taught within the church?

I would say they are only some of the things that have been taught.  It has never been a monolithic, one answer only fed to the little birdies presentation even at Primary level…I know that based on my Primary teachers and what I taught as a Primary teacher for over 20 years and one year as a SS teacher of 15?  year olds and talks to others who heard different things growing up or as investigators and new converts.  
 

I am not saying this stuff hasn’t been out there, it may even be in the majority for certain time periods, maybe even for most of the Church’s existence…can’t say because I haven’t seen that type of questions being asked in the journals and histories I read, but there has to be some sort of heritage in the US at least given how widely such ideas get mentioned both in and out of church.

But like Bluebell, I haven’t seen that kind of snark from the pulpit myself.  This shocks me seeing him do it.  I did see it in seminary from the kids and I have heard it outside of meetings.  Seen a lot of pushback too.  Once I learned about modalism being a heresy for most Christian faiths, I made sure to point that out when I hear dismissive comments of the Trinity assuming that is what is meant.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Rivers]

In this age of smart phones, General Authorities just need to assume everything they say to a congregation is public.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

To possess all that God has as he has promised us, we need to receive and live the covenants that are unique to our faith.

I am wondering if you could list the covenants about which you are speaking that are unique to the LDS faith? The two Baptismal covenants certainly are not unique. Of course, if some are related to temple ordinances that should not be talked about, I don't expect you to mention those. I often hear about the receiving and living of covenants from church members. I just have never heard of any that I don't do my best to live as well. I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate question. Thanks.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the hysterical pearl clutching from the likes of Dehlin signals to me that he is not altogether off the mark with the talk taken as a whole. 

I don’t think relying on critics’ reactions to talk to determine accuracy is wise.

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say they are only some of the things that have been taught.  It has never been a monolithic, one answer only fed to the little birdies presentation even at Primary level…I know that based on my Primary teachers and what I taught as a Primary teacher for over 20 years and one year as a SS teacher of 15?  year olds and talks to others who heard different things growing up or as investigators and new converts.  
 

I am not saying this stuff hasn’t been out there, it may even be in the majority for certain time periods, maybe even for most of the Church’s existence…can’t say because I haven’t seen that type of questions being asked in the journals and histories I read, but there has to be some sort of heritage in the US at least given how widely such ideas get mentioned both in and out of church.

But like Bluebell, I haven’t seen that kind of snark from the pulpit myself.  This shocks me seeing him do it.  I did see it in seminary from the kids and I have heard it outside of meetings.  Seen a lot of pushback too.  Once I learned about modalism being a heresy for most Christian faiths, I made sure to point that out when I hear dismissive comments of the Trinity assuming that is what is meant.

Totally agree.

I also agree about the level of snark. But sans snark, I think the message he was trying to get across about race and priesthood and the value of other churches "pretending" is a part of the church teachings. If there is "one true church" then the others must be pretending.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think relying on critics’ reactions to talk to determine accuracy is wise.

Good thing I didn’t make that claim, then. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Totally agree.

I also agree about the level of snark. But sans snark, I think the message he was trying to get across about race and priesthood and the value of other churches "pretending" is a part of the church teachings. If there is "one true church" then the others must be pretending.

Not at all.  "The others" may be correct in a wide number of ways, and totally sincere in their beliefs, but ultimately incorrect as to the issues that differentiate our respective positions, namely, priesthood authority and all that comes with it (restoration of authority, living prophets and apostles, open canon, a visible church, authorized ordinances, temple work, and so on).

I think most Latter-day Saints believe this.  I think most converts to the Church believe this.  We do not have a monopoly on truth.  We have a monopoly on priesthood authority (kinda - the priesthood held by the "sons of Aaron" think is unclear to me).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is "one true church" then the others must be pretending.

Why?  This statement makes no sense to me.  If you are sincere in your beliefs and actions, then by definition you are not pretending.  You might be wrong, but that's way different than pretending.  When you pretend you act in a way so that something that you know isn't real, looks or seems real. 

That does not in any way mesh with my belief that only one church has the right to act in God's name as a church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

In this age of smart phones, General Authorities just need to assume everything they say to a congregation is public.

For the second time in this thread, I’ll point out that Brad Wilcox is not a General Authority. He’s a counselor in the Young Men general presidency. That doesn’t make him a General Authority. 
 

For future reference, these are the men who comprise the General Authorities:

— The First Presidency and Quotum of the Twelve Apostles. 
 

— The Presiding Bishopric. 
 

— The Presidency of the Seventy (seven members). 
 

— The members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy (they are designated as General Authority Seventies; the members of the other quorums are Area Seventies). 
 

The General Authorities do not include

— the Young Men general presidency. 
 

— the Sunday School general presidency. 
 

— the Relief Society general presidency.

— the Young Women general presidency. 
 

— the Primary general presidency. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

https://fb.watch/b2InrfakW3/
 

A bit of damage control from elder Bednar?

”For the past 200 years, the call to all Latter-day Saints—and really to all people—has been consistent and clear. Peace and unity are possible as we learn to love our fellow human beings throughout the world.  Whether they be Jewish, Islamic, fellow Christians Hindu, Buddhist, or any other denomination or faith tradition, we can live together with mutual admiration and respect—without forsaking our religious convictions. The things we have in common are far greater than are our differences.”

Edited February 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Nofear]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For the second time in this thread, I’ll point out that Brad Wilcox is not a General Authority. He’s a counselor in the Young Men general presidency. That doesn’t make him a General Authority.

Indeed they are General Officers and are typically listed/identified on the Church websites where the General Authorities are. e.g. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/global-leadership-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t think relying on critics’ reactions to talk to determine accuracy is wise.

I haven’t listened to the talk, but it seems like active church members are as appalled and embarrassed by the talk as any hysterical, pearl-clutching apostates. 

My son showed me the brief clip he saw, and we both thought he was trying too hard to “relate” to the kids. But the one clip was certainly cringe-worthy, at best.

[breathing heavily] Now, where did I put my pearls? 😂

Edited February 8, 2022 by jkwilliams

[CA Steve]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I haven’t listened to the talk, but it seems like active church members are as appalled and embarrassed by the talk as any hysterical, pearl-clutching apostates. 

My son showed me the brief clip he saw, and we both thought he was trying too hard to “relate” to the kids. But the one clip was certainly cringe-worthy, at best.

[breathing heavily] Now, where did I put my pearls? 😂

Well, thank God it was a general officer of the church saying it and not a General Authority! I am comforted by the fact his audience surely realized that important difference when he was talking to them.

Edited February 8, 2022 by CA Steve

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If there is "one true church" then the others must be pretending.

Not having authority is not the same as pretending to be a church, nor is it pretending to gather together to worship.

A closer analogy from the POV of a belief the Church is the one true and living church with priesthood keys would be you it seems to me are saying we teach other churches are like kids playing at being doctors while we are the only ones with actual medical treatments, while I think of our church as the ones that have authority to operate in hospitals, etc while other churches offer medical treatments that are recognized as helpful in many ways (my own personal opinion is they may be better at teaching certain aspects of the gospel****) and may even be better , but they don’t require a medical license (acupuncture, massage therapy, nutrition) and they would not be qualified to receive a license without going through our official medical school and thus they are insufficient for a full medical support system.  But other churches don’t see a need to have a license to practice medicine as they see what they offer as all that is needed to heal, so they aren’t pretending to be us.  They are fulfilling the way of healing as they understand it to exist.  And in their view, we are a self anointed medical school offering a license that isn’t necessary…like how some doctors think about any certificate to practice chiropractic medicine is bogus.

***I think medical schools do a dismal job of teaching nutrition and it would do a tremendous benefit to their patients if doctors had more training in nutrition.  I can see using the analogy that the Church might have an area of neglect like nutrition has been neglected by MDs and there may be other churches that are great at teaching nutrition.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Rivers]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For the second time in this thread, I’ll point out that Brad Wilcox is not a General Authority. He’s a counselor in the Young Men general presidency. That doesn’t make him a General Authority. 
 

For future reference, these are the men who comprise the General Authorities:

— The First Presidency and Quotum of the Twelve Apostles. 
 

— The Presiding Bishopric. 
 

— The Presidency of the Seventy (seven members). 
 

— The members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy (they are designated as General Authority Seventies; the members of the other quorums are Area Seventies). 
 

The General Authorities do not include

— the Young Men general presidency. 
 

— the Sunday School general presidency. 
 

— the Relief Society general presidency.

— the Young Women general presidency. 
 

— the Primary general presidency. 

Thank you for the correction.