Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Before social media I think you are probably right, but after it, it's hard to believe that no other adults got on and complained or worried.  Plus, stake presidents in Utah especially seem to be generally well connected to leadership in other stakes.  You'd think it wouldn't be that long before he just wasn't invited to speak at these special youth things anymore, at least in areas with a high concentration of members who all talk to each other.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to make a point by saying that we haven't heard anything before now.  I'm genuinely curious why this is the first time it's coming out if he's always this bad and has been this bad for decades.

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. 

Link to comment

The message we are getting from some in church leadership (oaks, Wilcox, Bednar ect) is akin to saying "why are you complaining about being a slave? Slaves in other countries are treated much worse. And after all, your master has given you delegated authority to shop for yourself under certain circumstances so stop complaining and get with the program" 

The silence from the 1st presidency is sending an implied message that will leave undulable harm and could cause an exodus from the church that has not been seen before. 

I am deeply troubled by his comments and a lack of acknolwedging the gross error. He has not stated that he was wrong, he simply apologized for the timing and the specific wording. "Sorry for stabbing you, it was not my intention to cause you to bleed" 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It was a rant about how he said nothing wrong but had taught the truth with humility. And those who took issue with the talk were making a mountain out of a molehill (and would have volunteered to put the last nails in Jesus’ cross). It made Brother Wilcox seem reasonable by comparison. 

Where was this?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wish his wife had decided to move on. Her comments were unhelpful, to say the least. 

Oh no.  What did she say?

I can see why she would want to defend her husband (if that's what happened) but a spouse isn't really going to be able to do anything to mitigate this kind of thing.  When posters are having a disagreement on here and one of them comes back with "my wife agrees with me", it doesn't serve any good purpose or bolster an argument at all.  It kind of makes the person using it look worse sometimes.   

Similarly, a spouse jumping into to this kind of fray is probably only going to make it worse.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It was a rant about how he said nothing wrong but had taught the truth with humility. And those who took issue with the talk were making a mountain out of a molehill (and would have volunteered to put the last nails in Jesus’ cross). It made Brother Wilcox seem reasonable by comparison. 

😔 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's a pressure valve.  Without this sort of mercy and grace no one would ever apologize, no one would ever admit error, no one would ever try to learn and be better.  Because what would be the point?  The consequence for a big screw up without remorse and correction would be the same as a big screw up with remorse and correction.  Incentives matter. 

It’s in the zeitgeist of all Justice and no mercy. No forgiveness, no redemption, no Atonement. Only retribution. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's a pressure valve.  Without this sort of mercy and grace no one would ever apologize, no one would ever admit error, no one would ever try to learn and be better.  Because what would be the point?  The consequence for a big screw up without remorse and correction would be the same as a big screw up with remorse and correction.  Incentives matter. 

Um... 

Are you being serious? I think so, but I'm not sure.

The point is to be repentant and do the right thing. If you say something hurtful you apologize because you legitimately feel remorse, not because you're trying to maintain your speaking schedule. I suppose the incentive would be forgiveness from God. 

By the way, I don't think he's really apologized yet. The "I'm sorry if what I said offended you" apology is pretty weak AND that was only on one of the multitude of topics he should apologize for in that speech. If he is remorseful about what he said, and not simply because of the fallout, I haven't seen it yet. But that's up to him. The damage has been done. If he feels remorse and decides he needs to repent, it would be a good thing for him personally. But he has likely lost the trust of the church community. As you are probably aware, trust is easy to lose, hard to gain back.

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It was a rant about how he said nothing wrong but had taught the truth with humility. And those who took issue with the talk were making a mountain out of a molehill (and would have volunteered to put the last nails in Jesus’ cross). It made Brother Wilcox seem reasonable by comparison. 

Holy crap! Yikes. They may want to take a little trip to Mexico, stick their feet in the sand and decompress a bit.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Freedom said:

The message we are getting from some in church leadership (oaks, Wilcox, Bednar ect) is akin to saying "why are you complaining about being a slave? Slaves in other countries are treated much worse. And after all, your master has given you delegated authority to shop for yourself under certain circumstances so stop complaining and get with the program" 

The silence from the 1st presidency is sending an implied message that will leave undulable harm and could cause an exodus from the church that has not been seen before. 

I am deeply troubled by his comments and a lack of acknolwedging the gross error. He has not stated that he was wrong, he simply apologized for the timing and the specific wording. "Sorry for stabbing you, it was not my intention to cause you to bleed" 

 

It would probably do the church some good to make a statement, sooner rather than later, but this only happened a couple of days ago. I saw Bednar had made some kind of statement but it didn't seem to specifically address this uproar.

It makes sense that they would move cautiously. I'm trying to think of other recent examples, but does the church usually come out directly to denounce a talk or comments, or behavior, or is that more likely to be handled with the individual instead of in public.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is anyone interested or would it be more of a distracting for me to finish my reaction posts?  I was so tired and jittery after errands yesterday wasn’t in the mood to get back to it till now.

If everyone has pretty much watched it already, thinking my rerun post wouldn’t contribute, but if there are some who really don’t want to watch, but would still like a rundown, let me know.

I always love to hear your viewpoint, Calm.  Please contribute.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The point is to be repentant and do the right thing. If you say something hurtful you apologize because you legitimately feel remorse, not because you're trying to maintain your speaking schedule. I suppose the incentive would be forgiveness from God.

I absolutely agree.  A good person does that.  But how do you incentivize a mediocre-to-bad person to do the right thing?  Incentives matter.  It's a little contradictory to believe that someone can be so bad that they must be canceled, but at the same time to believe that they will now be good enough to do the right thing regardless of incentives. 

 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Link to comment

Since someone asked, here are Debi Wilcox’s Facebook comments:

Seriously?! You sound like someone who would have been the first to hammer in the nails on Christ’s cross. I suggest you listen to the talk again in the spirit of humility and you might understand what was trying to be explained. He was NOT racist, or anti-feminism, or demeaning of other Christians, peoples etc. I thought he explained several issues in a very clear, tolerant and understanding manner and was trying to explain that there are reasons God reveals things in their time. The youth NEED some answers in this very contradictory, contentious world that make sense to them and I thought he did that in a brilliant manner. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some truths that are not found elsewhere. Does that make other churches wrong? Of course not! We love and respect all cultures, people’s, nations and religions. There are great people everywhere. It is you that is small-minded and trying to stir up contention where no contention existed. People are making a HUGE mountain out of a molehill. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s in the zeitgeist of all Justice and no mercy. No forgiveness, no redemption, no Atonement. Only retribution. 

The only real solution to the pressure is to have more senior church leadership step in and correct the record. Yes, some people are going overboard with outrage (see Dehlin), but most reactions I've seen from members are either legitimate concern or legitimate confusion as to what he said wrong.

We're nearly 45 years past the priesthood/temple revelation, but have yet to seriously address the ban. As a church focused on retention of our rising youth and on missionary outreach to converts - two groups that expect to receive answers - it is simply untenable to continue the status quo of 'we don't know.' Not to mention that it completely undermines our claim to modern prophets and revelation. If we don't know after 45 years, it's either because we aren't asking or God isn't speaking.  Until the church provides a real answer, the Botts and Wilcoxs of the church will continue with good intentions to fill the void, but inevitably give crap answers that have to be dismissed as 'folk lore.'

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I absolutely agree.  A good person does that.  But how do you incentivize a mediocre-to-bad person to do the right thing?  Incentives matter.  It's a little contradictory to believe that someone can be so bad that they must be canceled, but at the same time to believe that they will now be good enough to do the right thing regardless of incentives. 

 

If a bad person says racist, sexist, elitist, things, do I really care if he apologizes? No. I'm not going to give him an incentive for being decent enough to apologize.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Since someone asked, here are Debi Wilcox’s Facebook comments:

Seriously?! You sound like someone who would have been the first to hammer in the nails on Christ’s cross. I suggest you listen to the talk again in the spirit of humility and you might understand what was trying to be explained. He was NOT racist, or anti-feminism, or demeaning of other Christians, peoples etc. I thought he explained several issues in a very clear, tolerant and understanding manner and was trying to explain that there are reasons God reveals things in their time. The youth NEED some answers in this very contradictory, contentious world that make sense to them and I thought he did that in a brilliant manner. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some truths that are not found elsewhere. Does that make other churches wrong? Of course not! We love and respect all cultures, people’s, nations and religions. There are great people everywhere. It is you that is small-minded and trying to stir up contention where no contention existed. People are making a HUGE mountain out of a molehill. 

It appears he needs a better sounding board for his ideas and talks.

Link to comment
Just now, Stormin' Mormon said:

Shouldn't we incentive a racist to become non-racist?

This is getting comical. You don't incentivize someone to change their beliefs. I'll give you $1 million dollars to stop being racist. Do you really think that would make a difference? It might change the way the person acts in public, but it won't change their beliefs.

How would you recommend we incentivize people to become non-racist or non-sexist or non-homophobic? I'm all ears.

There are appropriate times for both a carrot and a stick. Giving incentives to a bad person to hopefully make them less bad isn't a winning solution. We may as well just pay criminals so they are incentivized not to perpetrate crimes.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Since someone asked, here are Debi Wilcox’s Facebook comments:

Seriously?! You sound like someone who would have been the first to hammer in the nails on Christ’s cross. I suggest you listen to the talk again in the spirit of humility and you might understand what was trying to be explained. He was NOT racist, or anti-feminism, or demeaning of other Christians, peoples etc. I thought he explained several issues in a very clear, tolerant and understanding manner and was trying to explain that there are reasons God reveals things in their time. The youth NEED some answers in this very contradictory, contentious world that make sense to them and I thought he did that in a brilliant manner. I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has some truths that are not found elsewhere. Does that make other churches wrong? Of course not! We love and respect all cultures, people’s, nations and religions. There are great people everywhere. It is you that is small-minded and trying to stir up contention where no contention existed. People are making a HUGE mountain out of a molehill. 

Could you read the comment that she was replying to to see if it was over the top?  Or was it meant as a reply to all comments?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The only real solution to the pressure is to have more senior church leadership step in and correct the record. Yes, some people are going overboard with outrage (see Dehlin), but most reactions I've seen from members are either legitimate concern or legitimate confusion as to what he said wrong.

We're nearly 45 years past the priesthood/temple revelation, but have yet to seriously address the ban. As a church focused on retention of our rising youth and on missionary outreach to converts - two groups that expect to receive answers - it is simply untenable to continue the status quo of 'we don't know.' Not to mention that it completely undermines our claim to modern prophets and revelation. If we don't know after 45 years, it's either because we aren't asking or God isn't speaking.  Until the church provides a real answer, the Botts and Wilcoxs of the church will continue with good intentions to fill the void, but inevitably give crap answers that have to be dismissed as 'folk lore.'

This is Dehlin's dream come true.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is getting comical. You don't incentivize someone to change their beliefs. I'll give you $1 million dollars to stop being racist. Do you really think that would make a difference? It might change the way the person acts in public, but it won't change their beliefs.

How would you recommend we incentivize people to become non-racist or non-sexist or non-homophobic? I'm all ears.

There are appropriate times for both a carrot and a stick. Giving incentives to a bad person to hopefully make them less bad isn't a winning solution. We may as well just pay criminals so they are incentivized not to perpetrate crimes.

 

Or as I've heard dozens of times in Conference: “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of the people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. … Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature”

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How would you recommend we incentivize people to become non-racist or non-sexist or non-homophobic? I'm all ears.

 

I would recommend exactly what I said earlier in the thread.  Reprove with sharpness, cancel near-future presentations.  And then, after an appropriate amount of time, show forth an increase in love and allow them to make another presentation to see if they've learned, grown, matured. 

Are we quibbling over what "an appropriate amount of time" would be?  Or do you think that the silencing should last for the rest of a person's life? 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Could you read the comment that she was replying to to see if it was over the top?  Or was it meant as a reply to all comments?

The comment was pretty much what everyone else was saying. Not sure why she singled that guy out for a dose of high dudgeon. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...