Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Peacefully]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I see you are one in accord with Brad Wilcox! I have no idea what would lead you to say such a hateful thing! I cannot believe such a statement is the teaching of your church. So Protestants are "deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist!" May I quote you? I am sure that will go a long way toward positive inter-faith relationships! Congratulations! You have just outdone yourself and Brad Wilcox! I just spent an hour trying to craft a positive reply to your previous comment. How does your comment possibly not violate forum rules? More importantly how does it not violate your own faith? Now I am really confused!

I agree with you. That type of rhetoric has no place on this forum or in our faith. Please be that not all members of the LDS church believe this way. 

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet these men, called prophets and apostles, taught these  things, made statements, even official statements about the ban.  And now it is all "Oh well they were all wrong and speculating."  If the ban was wrong why did not God intervene? Why did God not tell his prophets to change this sooner than 1978 at a time when there was great pressure on the Church as well as growth in Brazil where the ban caused problems?  This is one of the biggest reasons why I think LDS prophets and apostles are relatively useless. They have no better insight to the issues in the worlds and sometimes worse since dogma restricts their actions.

Speaking of underlying assumptions, I think this may be tied to the assumptions of the purpose of a prophet and what the church is for. 
this still rides on the idea of a more perfect church. One where is not in active restoration but one that is restored. In someways it runs on the same paradigm Wilcox appears to be running on, just with a different end result to the end answers and questions given. 
For me the assumptions are different. I find the best description for what I assume in James 5…which is a passage no one likes cuz they get lost in symbols and it talk about trees the entire time. As an artist who gardens it works for me well . But near the end in v66-76 it talks about our time now. And it talks about a process of work that is a balance between growing the good in balance. The bad stays until the good is strong enough to take on more without becoming overgrown and spinning out too quickly. Prophets to me are called to take on just a part of that work. No prophet moves us completely to the end result. No prophet can frame the tree as he wishes. No prophet has more vision than what is needed for the work and his own capacity, openness, and strength in receiving it. It’s a balance between what god brings in and how we (the many branches) take it. 

based on that assumption, my personal answers to your two questions are fairly simple. 1.) he couldn’t intervene, because the branches (ie. The people in the church at that time) had made it pretty obvious they weren’t ready for more…the work won’t move faster than the whole of us are willing and able to move 2) the tree (and trees) was changing to a point that further growth was possible and showing strong signs of moving forward. 
I have a lot of empathy for this process because to a far smaller experience of rooting out racist ideology from my own perspective, specifically in how I was reading and viewing scriptures through the lens i inherited. It wasn’t something that changed over night. I went through phases of thought that assuaged some of my concerns but not all. And over this experience I learned more than just a better way to understand the passages in question. And I was no where as steeped in our racist society as they were in theirs. Growth simply takes time. 

 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

As only can happen in a small Mexican town, people driving by us in the town began yelling at us "Aqui esta el mata coyote!" Here is the coyote killer! It was all in good humor. We were famous!

What a fun story! Thanks for sharing it! 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For those who accept the false doctrine of infallibility, of course it should seem this way.  Black LDS PhD student Tarik LaCour has a much more balanced view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khThGVq1j6Q&t=613s

 

Straw man.  I did not make that argument.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

repeating a lie and being a liar is not the same thing.

I am not the one who said they were liars.

 

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

 

 

God lets his people go into the wilderness. He is not a micromanager.

DOes God do this?  How do you know this?  There was a time that the LDS Church taught that having prophets meant something and that as President Benson would say, they get today's news today.  Well the Church still teaches this but the apologists down play it because its problematic.

 

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

 

 

He works through a still small voice and not a loud speaker. If you are not listening, he does not speak. He does not open your heart, you must open it yourself. There is a very good podcast you might find interesting:https://faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/

too often people, including church leaders, try to fill in the gaps by providing a plausible explanation to justify a belief. The exclusion of blacks was wrong, and it took many years for us to finlay find out way out of this error. 

 

 

 

CFR that this is what the LDS leaders teach about themselves.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

based on that assumption, my personal answers to your two questions are fairly simple. 1.) he couldn’t intervene, because the branches (ie. The people in the church at that time) had made it pretty obvious they weren’t ready for more…the work won’t move faster than the whole of us are willing and able to move 2) the tree (and trees) was changing to a point that further growth was possible and showing strong signs of moving forward. 

I think this position is problematic especially in light of polygamy.  God could not intervene on the alleged mistake of perpetuating a priesthood ban but he did allegedly, according to Joseph Smith ,intervene by sending an angel with a flaming sword that was going to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage.  How ready for polygamy were the people of that day?  If god did this for many wives God could do it for the priesthood ban.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

 

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think this position is problematic especially in light of polygamy.  God could not intervene on the alleged mistake of perpetuating a priesthood ban but he did allegedly, according to Joseph Smith ,intervene by sending an angel with a flaming sword that was going to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage.  How ready for polygamy were the people of that day?  If god did this for many wives God could do it for the priesthood ban.

 

The early stages in the development of an institution often involve revolution, discovery, innovation and the like. Joseph Smith's miraculous experiences with Deity and angels, etc. provided that spark. We build on the shoulders of our predecessors in slower, less dramatic ways but with greater depth, stability and permanence.  With millions of people having the gift of the Holy Ghost (instead of a handful), the restoration can roll on in a much more measured fashion.

Edited February 13, 2022 by CV75

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

You probably are right. But I would add this nuance. What role did the child play in asking God to heal? He or she simply asked God to heal via His (God's own power). That is not a power or an authority, it is a petition. If as a result God heals, it is not because of some special authority or power on the part of the petitioner, is it? Does God grant a petition of a male LDS priesthood holder in a special way that He would not to in the presence of a petition of a daughter of His, or His child from another faith?

To use your analogy any child can petition a parent for something. Is that not true?  A person's experience of God's healing as a result of a petition, or in the absence of any petition (grace) is wonderful, is it not? When I pray in Christ's name, I do so to indicate that if and when anything comes of that prayer it is solely and only by and through Him. In my humanity I may in an imperfect way mirror His love, grace, and mercy to a dying world. However I have no capacity to reflect His power as did an OT prophet for example.

If I think I am the one accomplishing any good in His name, then I may become like Elijah under the broom tree, depressed and forlorn when my supposed efforts didn't have the effect I thought they would or should. You (Mark) often bring greater understanding of the LDS faith to me. I appreciate that. If you truly believe that you are doing something unique and specifically different as an LDS priesthood holder, when you ask for healing . . . special or different from any other petitioner doing the same (your wife, daughter, sister, Methodist neighbor) then I understand better some of the exceptionalism I often see and hear in the mind of the LDS priesthood holder, as I did in listening to the talk of Brad Wilcox.

Having said that I must agree with you that I absolutely do not see that we will ever grow up to be as God is. Perhaps that inability to comprehend that fact is what separates us the most. It may be profound or it may be as simple as the difference between "like" and "as."

If I might offer you an analogy of my own. Friday morning at 4:30am my son and I took off for the four hour drive to the states to see the doctor, pick up his new glasses, buy groceries and get our mail. At around 7am we were five miles south of the border. A rather large coyote ran out into the highway and we struck him (her). The coyote died and the accident resulted in the destruction of the car bumper and radiator. Yes, we have big coyotes here. We found ourselves on the side of the road, shaken but without injury.  Fortunately we had cell phone service so I called my wife back at home. I explained what happened and our situation, asking our employees to borrow a trailer, bring it and the truck to us to load up the car and return home. We have one road that leads to the US and it is heavily traveled by big trucks! I prepared my son that we would be missing his appointment and glasses and would have a three hour wait in the car. He did well with that.

My wife unbeknownst to me got on our ward whatsapp list and asked if anyone was traveling to the states between Entronque and Palomas, she would greatly appreciate it if they would offer us any help they could. Within half an hour my cell phone began ringing with offers of help from our LDS friends, whether they were all the way back in Colonia Juarez or half an hour down the highway headed on their own trip to the states. As you all know we are not members - they call us "faithful non-Members -Our Mennonites!" We had a number of offers of help from them including men who were willing to drive the three hours each way to bring our car back.

None of them knew that we had an accident and were in trouble. That would have been acting "as" God. They had no special foresight into our situation - now that would have been prophetic-like power! Having said that, when they found out we were in trouble, they jumped to action with no regard to their own schedule to help us. That was being "like" God. They reflected His love to us, even some who aren't particularly thrilled we are in the ward! I explained to them that our workers were bringing a truck and trailer and that we were safe and fine waiting for them to come get us.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that two complete strangers also stopped to help us, offering a "Mexican chain" tow into Palomas where they knew of a radiator repair shop. Another gave us water to drink and some snacks. We accepted the offer of the chain tow (if you know what that is) and the snacks, and found ourselves in half an hour in Palomas where there were restrooms and places to get something to eat, etc. I will probably never see the man who gave us the tow again. He also reflected Christ to us (I have no idea what if any faith he had) and refused all offers of money for his help. He wished us God's blessings and went on his way. As only can happen in a small Mexican town, people driving by us in the town began yelling at us "Aqui esta el mata coyote!" Here is the coyote killer! It was all in good humor. We were famous!

By mid-afternoon we were back home. Many people that day reflected kindness and love to us. Some were LDS, others probably Catholic or Pentecostal, my wife who has a "special" love for us, and my faithful workers who performed above and beyond! Our LDS friends were wonderful examples of God's love; not of His power. Both the ladies and men offered  to help. We are grateful for all those who offered or helped, and understand those who hurried along on their own life's journey that morning. God's love and His power (authority) are not the same. We saw lots of the former Friday morning and were grateful. In that sense all those who took time out of their busy day to offer us help were exceptional, weren't they? Thanks for reading this epistle.

I love this epistle, brought tears of joy! Love the people that are either in their minds God's hands, or just folks that want to help on top of that. Just because.....

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think I must not have expressed myself well. My view is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am not correlating the Fundamentalists of the 1950s with any of the fruits of the Spirit that you mention. Quite the opposite.

Then I have no idea what all this means:
 

Quote

What I can't figure out is that virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about it needs to remind the listeners that it is the only authorized priesthood in the world. That need to remind everyone is the very opposite of the qualities noted in the passage you quoted. To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power! They remind me too much of 1950's Fundamentalist pastors and leaders, as does Brad Wilcox to bring this back to the subject. Those who truly are comfortable in their power don't need to talk about it with such obvious pride! I think it is not that I misunderstand the concept; I dislike its manifestation.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think this position is problematic especially in light of polygamy.  God could not intervene on the alleged mistake of perpetuating a priesthood ban but he did allegedly, according to Joseph Smith ,intervene by sending an angel with a flaming sword that was going to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage.  How ready for polygamy were the people of that day?  If god did this for many wives God could do it for the priesthood ban.

 

Actually, JS never claimed that. It comes from second hand stories. Just to be accurate. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The early stages in the development of an institution often involve revolution, discovery, innovation and the like. Joseph Smith's miraculous experiences with Deity and angels, etc. provided that spark. We build on the shoulders of our predecessors in slower, less dramatic ways but with greater depth, stability and permanence.  With millions of people having the gift of the Holy Ghost (instead of a handful), the restoration can roll on in a much more measured fashion.

I am not sure how this addresses at all my point.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Straw man.  I did not make that argument.

Your critique assumed that.

[Teancum]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, JS never claimed that. It comes from second hand stories. Just to be accurate. 

Ok.  Quite a few second hand statements.  Do you doubt those who said it?

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your critique assumed that.

No it did not.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

Actually, JS never claimed that. It comes from second hand stories. Just to be accurate. 

A polite call for reference please?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  Quite a few second hand statements.  Do you doubt those who said it?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_claim_that_an_angel_threatened_him_with_a_"drawn_sword"_or_"flaming_sword"_if_a_woman_refused_to_marry_him%3F
 

Quote

The "angel with a sword" reference refers to Joseph's postponement of the practice of polygamy. Brian Hales notes that,

"Twenty-one accounts by nine polygamy insiders left recollections that the Prophet told of one specific reason: an angel with a sword who threatened him if he did not proceed. All nine witnesses could have heard the statement from the Prophet himself; however, the narratives themselves suggest that Benjamin F. Johnson and Eliza R. Snow may have been repeating information gathered from other people. Joseph Lee Robinson's narrative is difficult to date and his actual source is not clear. Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner quote the Prophet directly and Mary Elizabeth provides details not available elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of the Robinson account, all of the reminiscences date to at least twenty to thirty years after the event." ^[2]

Quote

Here are the quotes attributed to Zina on the matter:

1881: Zina Huntington—Zina D. Young told of Bro. Joseph's remark in relation to the revelation on celestial marriage. How an angel came to him with a drawn sword, and said if he did not obey this law he would lost his priesthood; and in the keeping of it he, Joseph, did not know but it would cost him his life. ^[3] 

1894: Zina Huntington—[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, 'Tell Zina I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lost my position and my life.'" ^[4]

For a complete listing:

https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf

Edited February 13, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure how this addresses at all my point.

That may be because you forgot your point that God dramatically intervenes in earlier events of Restoration (when they are not ready for change) and not later (when they are no more ready for change).

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That may be because you forgot your point that God dramatically intervenes in earlier events of Restoration (when they are not ready for change) and not later (when they are no more ready for change).

It still  does not address the point.  Also who supports your premise?  Do the LDS leaders?  If the ban was a mistake God did not correct it because it was 25,30,75 or 100 years after the restoration and there was no need for miraculous interventions?  This seems like a pretty weak argument.

[Calm]

I am not drawing any conclusions from this, just double checking my info…

Joseph had visits from angels to instruct him on a number of occasions throughout his life that we are aware of, I believe..  Correct?

He was also allowing, if not directly participating in giving the priesthood or allowing men to act in their priesthood roles to blacks during his lifetime, correct?

Did Brigham Young ever speak of getting instruction from God by having an angel visit him?  My memory is he didn’t, he had first Joseph instructing him and visions as well, but I don’t remember angels being involved in his revelatory experience. I haven’t studied him much though, so perhaps some one can tell me if I am right or not.

It is Brigham Young who instituted the Ban after some experience of allowing black men to function in priesthood roles, correct?

Later prophets I am very unfamiliar with.  I am aware of some visions, but were there any that spoke of angels coming to speak with them?  
 

Just curious if there was a different process of learning for Joseph than the other prophets.  Not saying that even if they are different, that means God is not just as capable of delivering a clear message of what needs to be done without an angel as with.  Just wondering if it was more God instructing Joseph in the way he expected to be instructed that resulted in an angel delivering the message.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think this position is problematic especially in light of polygamy.  God could not intervene on the alleged mistake of perpetuating a priesthood ban but he did allegedly, according to Joseph Smith ,intervene by sending an angel with a flaming sword that was going to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage.  How ready for polygamy were the people of that day?  If god did this for many wives God could do it for the priesthood ban.

 

Technically the ban wasn't there from the get go. It wasn't there for a couple decades. The ban wasn't simply implementing or introducing something new. It was reintrenching something that was always slightly there. 

I will be the first to admit that I am not as well versed in the history of polygamy as I am with the history of the Ban...as well as black history in the US in general. One of these had a far more salient effect on me and it wasn't polygamy. But from what I do know, to me, polygamy was less of a stretch because of what I know of US history around race. The idea of marriage was already there and the ideals around marriage were different from our own now. The bible explicitly talked about polygamy. And the people were already on a path that assumed distinction and a willingness to be distinct from the greater populace in pursuit of God. It wasn't wanted, it had a sticky experience even while being practice for the 70-80 years it was actively practiced (probably around 60 more openly and around 40 without serious external backlash), but it also was at least initially an easier social push than issues surrounding race. In many ways when the details are out, there's less overlap than we often see in hindsight. One of the distinctions was definitely social impact. I think there's this interesting intersection that highlights this. In 1862, at the beginning of the civil war a bill was passed against polygamy as well. But the bill was largely gratuitous because of a deal made between BY and Lincoln that basically traded lack of reinforcement for lack of involvement in the Civil war. For the larger society, race was a more present issue as it dealt with the very structure, order, and assumptions of the nation the church was largely in. For early LDS, race was more of a side issue as the number of blacks in the church were small, the number of racist assumptions remained even in many of the proponents for changes in society or the church, and the basic issues and order of the church loomed more present as they tried to carve out space for themselves in a society that already saw them as a problem and circumspect at best. 

I am not God. I do not pretend to fully get God. But I do have some understanding on the difficulties about bringing people to change via my job. When people come in they present me a series of problems. Some of them they explicitly tell me. Others I see as they talk to me more and more, or become clearer to both of us over time. In some cases and in some things I can expect rapid shifts. Usually these are tied to things that are not strongly ingrained or have become an established habit just yet. In others I can guide them into it. Other problems still I will likely never be able to touch more than briefly. Often that can happen in the exact same person or relationship. It's my job to figure out where to start nudging them. I only push when it's absolutely needed. Pushing too hard has it's own list of problems from passive or active pushback, people simply leaving and never returning, to problems recementing and getting worse. Sharing things with them that they're not ready to hear usually goes right over their heads or doesn't fully sink in or just makes them feel shame for something they can't fully fix. Some pushes seem counter-intuitive. Some are blatantly obvious. But it's still complicated and a dance to get it right...and that's just with 1-3 individuals at a time. I don’t get it right all the time…cuz again, I ain’t god. But the work often gives me deeper appreciation in what God does with us on both the individual and large scale. It drives a sense of humility when looking back on an era I wasn’t apart of…and makes me reticent to assume I or a better god-driven church could have done better. Change as an individual is not linear, it is not clean, and often it isn’t even full clear. Becoming zion likely is even less So. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I agree with you. That type of rhetoric has no place on this forum or in our faith. Please be that not all members of the LDS church believe this way. 

I'm not aiming this directly at @mfbukowski but behavior in general from some members of the church. 

It's been a really stressful vacation week with my very faithful LDS in-laws spent in Vegas. One of my BIL's actions were hard to take, especially since he's a current bishop.

We were returning from going to a restaurant and entered the timeshare units where there was an enclosed security entrance and they have three stop signs that the attendant removes once you show them you're a guest. Well this particular attendant was black and on her cell phone and wasn't immediately helping us. And he pipes up..."Oh, she's on the phone with one of her baby daddies!" My son has a black girl friend and is soon going to propose to her. I was incensed. But sat there wondering if I should speak up, dumb lame chicken that I am, I didn't say anything. Then once parked he spoke up about the dumb Democrats in the world. I'm not an official Democrat but wished I had the guts to say something, and kick myself for not saying that Sister Eubanks is a Democrat, something I just learned. I guess I can give him a break, he's the youngest child and sometimes just acts a bit crazy trying to be funny among the other three brothers on the trip. 

Also, my sister in law, not the wife of this brother, got after my husband because his grammar isn't all that great sometimes. She's correcting him all the time. He did get revenge and got after her for using a neti pot and clearing her nose passages over the kitchen sink every day since having Covid, he said how that is so disgusting. And this is not usually my husband speaking up, he was just so mad that she berated him.

I love my in laws, but sometimes it gets hard to take. They also attended the Vegas temple too. What is it with members that act so tacky, like Bro Wilcox? Not saying it's just the LDS people, not saying that at all. 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Tacenda

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

that said, your post made me think about an experience on my mission. Pre-mish i had been blessed with the gift if being perceptive and discerning things with people in my Patriarchal blessing. It was something I strongly believed and saw in myself more than once before, but on my mission, set apart via priesthood authority, that gift went on steroids. For example.. I could tell when people were lying, when things weren’t of God even if someone insisted they were, and I could recognize and name certain mental illnesses just by looking into their eyes on first meeting. It was weird…and cool. Now part of it I think ties with what you mentioned here. My mission gave me space to work out some of my biggest kinks that were blocking me in a lot of ways spiritually. So my personal capacity to use my spiritual gifts were magnified as I was personally healed. Being more at peace, more filled with love, less angry…that frees up a lot of spiritual space. But some of it wasn’t that. I got off my mission, have healed even more, and have continued to grow in faith…I’m still not perceptive like I was then.

This and other experiences are the ones that come to mind a lot when thinking about priesthood…it’s not just the spirit, but an induction into our role or apprenticeship with God. And in that capacity who we are is often magnified to meet the challenges we are called to work/face in the restorative work among god’s children. Here and on the other side. 

I think in part, if I was going to go with a singular word to describe it…it’s purpose. The thing you mentioned among others align us within said purpose and that then magnifies our capacities. As a missionary I was on a very singular purpose in a way I haven’t been called to do before or since. It magnified the traits in me that could most aptly be used in said work…including ones that I was still understanding myself. Said priesthood power still has an effect now, it’s just different in duration and avenues. Usually less of me is required and more of my talents are integrated into who I am/more easily accessible. Not that it’s less important or that I forget where they initially came from.

Luv your story and your insights - thank you Blue!

I think you are absolutely right about the role that "purpose" plays.  I hadn't really looked through that lens before, but it makes a great deal of sense.  At times in my life when I was filled with a sense of "higher purpose", there was a corresponding "calling forth of spiritual power", shall we say, though I'm not sure that's the most precise wording.  And then at times when I felt no such sense of purpose, that side of me was pretty much dormant.

I think a strong sense of having a "higher purpose" infused the early Mormons, and likewise still the missionaries.  People infused with a sense of higher purpose, in particular a group higher purpose, do things they wouldn't normally do... I'm thinking now of purposes that have nothing to do with religion. 

You have opened my mind to something here, you've connected dots for me, and now I'm trying to wrap my thick head around the implications.  Thank you. 

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Peacefully]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not aiming this directly at @mfbukowski but behavior in general from some members of the church. 

It's been a really stressful vacation week with my very faithful LDS in-laws spent in Vegas. One of my BIL's actions were hard to take, especially since he's a current bishop.

We were returning from going to a restaurant and entered the timeshare units where there was an enclosed security entrance and they have three stop signs that the attendant removes once you show them you're a guest. Well this particular attendant was black and on her cell phone and wasn't immediately helping us. And he pipes up..."Oh, she's on the phone with her baby daddy!" And other racist remarks! My son has a black girl friend and is soon going to propose to her. I was incensed. But sat their wondering if I should speak up, dumb lame chicken that I am, I didn't say anything. Then once parked he spoke up about the dumb Democrats in the world. I'm not an official Democrat but wished I had the guts to say something, and kick myself for not saying that Sister Eubanks is a Democrat, something I just learned. I guess I can give him a break, he's the youngest child and sometimes just acts a bit crazy trying to be funny among the other three brothers on the trip. 

Also, my sister in law, not the wife of this brother, got after my husband because his grammar isn't all that great sometimes. She's correcting him all the time. He did get revenge and got after her for using a neti pot and clearing her nose passages over the kitchen sink every day since having Covid he said how that is so disgusting. And this is not usually my husband speaking up, he was just so mad that she berated him.

I love my in laws, but sometimes it gets hard to take. They also attended the Vegas temple too. What is it with members that act so tacky, like Bro Wilcox? Not saying it's just the LDS people, not saying that at all. 

 

Yeah, I’m really scratching my head over all of this. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Yeah, I’m really scratching my head over all of this. 

I edited, he actually said "baby daddies". 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I edited, he actually said "baby daddies". 

Ugh…I understand it is hard, but it is not too late to write him a letter about not making judgments of other children of God without cause.  You don’t have to mention racism, just assuming when he didn’t know and using someone who didn’t deserve it as far as he could know to mock.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Calm