Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Then, I would suggest, that we do not know whether or not his appearance was coincidental.  And, if in fact he was there as a result of Brother Wilcox's recent comments, I would find it troublesome to say the least.

Why?  I can see it as troublesome if the only reason was to make the statement for Wilcox of “look, I have a black friend!”, but have you considered there is a great need for black members to see someone who can be seen as part of their voice in active leadership mode and for the rest of the community to see we have black leaders to teach and guide us as well, up front representing them?  By having a black representative of the Church highly visible (given there would be obvious widespread interest in Wilcox’s next appearance) acting in his official church role as a spokesperson for the Church and teaching the youth it is showing that there is a recognition of that need.  This was not some random black church leader.  It is Brother Wilcox’s closest colleague callingwise, a very appropriate choice for a supportive presence..and the guy who takes over being Wilcox’s church boss if his actual boss is unavailable if I understand the hierarchy correctly.  If Brother Corbitt now disappears, it is more likely he was there for damage control rather than an effort to get him a more public face, but why assume the worse until there is more evidence for it.  Local leaders will likely be much more comfortable asking Brother Corbitt to come speak if by chance they weren’t already (I don’t keep up with the youth side of the church, hardly did as a youth, lol; I have no clue about how visible Brother Corbitt is at this point, only knew Wilcox through his Grace talk and seeing his name on books in the DB catalogs).  He was a very personable speaker, even in Zoom which I generally hate.

If Brother Corbitt had been there while Wilcox doubled down on a “listen to me, I know what I am talking about and here is a black man standing next to me”, then I would be thinking Corbitt was there as a prop, a “I have a black friend, so I am not racist, so my words aren’t racist”.  But that wasn’t what Wilcox did, he said he was insensitive and he had been taught and corrected (generally someone is corrected when they are wrong, so the use of that makes me think Wilcox isn’t dismissing this as simply an awkward choice of words or not being PC enough).  Good chance Brother Corbitt was part of that.

In Wilcox’s position, he appears to be troubled by the reaction to his remarks on the Priesthood ban given his almost immediate apology and now speaking first up about it instead of just a side comment in his main presentation.  And hopefully that means he was troubled by his own remarks now as he realizes the hurt they have caused over the years.  Who would you want him to go to for support and help in this case?  Would going to a white friend and colleague somehow be a more authentic choice than finding the man he works side by side with who is black,  who is familiar with the needs of those Wilcox is meant to teach and lead because he is doing the same and with whom Wilcox likely feels he is safe to open his heart to as he struggles to learn better what to say, what not to say, and how to find greater understanding? (They have been working together for at least a couple of years, correct?)

So what if Brother Corbitt then wanted to help his friend scrap the crap off his shoe, help pull his foot out of his mouth (not sure I should be mixing those images), help rehabilitate his friend’s image?  Is he betraying black members by doing so or is he showing that brotherhood should have nothing to do with skin color in the Church?  What a great example of how things should be and can be if we stop looking at people as ‘the other’ and instead think of them as true friends, there for us to support and to be supportive of when we need it along with all the other perqs of friendship.  Sure, it looks one sided because it is Brother Corbitt helping Brother Wilcox out, but I got absolutely no sense from Corbitt he wasn’t all in, that he was reluctant to be there or was there just to do his church duty.  He actually looked like he was having fun from what I saw (I didn’t watch much of his talk).  And I am definitely glad I got to see him in this setting as his personality came out a lot more than in a formal talk.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If this was the first time Corbitt was included in the fireside specifically because of what Willcox said and you do not see why that is troublesome, I am not sure we have much to discuss.

I wonder how you would react if out of nowhere you were invited part of  something simple because of the color of your skin?

I think this is a harmful bit of speculation. Let's not go down this path anymore.

[MrShorty]

I've listened to the latest (13 February) fireside with Brothers Wilcox and Corbitt. Overall I think it was a nice message ("trust in the Lord") that I mostly agree with. The main problem that I still see with the substance of the messages is that they also seem to conflate "trust in the Lord" with "trust in the Church and its leaders." I have seen it said many times that "trust crisis" might be more accurate nomenclature in many cases than "faith crisis," and I don't think this latest fireside really addressed how one should "trust in the Lord" when one is having trouble "trusting in the Church and its leaders."

In some ways, this "trust in the Lord as He leads the Church" message is probably the only real answer that the Church has for these difficult issues. I did not feel like the anecdotes and examples shared by the speakers really addressed the challenges with trusting in the Lord and the Church when facing some of the more difficult issues. Trusting that God really approved of the policy towards those of African descent is, IMO, far different from trusting that God called me to the correct mission.

Perhaps the key thing that they did not even start to address is what it looks like to trust in the Lord when you feel like the Lord is leading you in a different direction from the Church. The speakers just seem to assume that trusting in God is the same as trusting the Church. There are many examples of people who feel that God leads them away from the Church, and, in some ways, those people need even greater trust in God than those who follow the prophet. In some ways, I can appreciate why they might have intentionally avoided this in a fireside for the youth (who are probably mostly young enough to be less mature in their personal moral development and their personal relationship with God and would naturally be less confident in trusting personal revelation over institutional revelation). But, it also seems that, at some point in many people's moral and spiritual development, they run into questions to which "just trust God and the Church" is not a satisfactory answer.

[Calm]

Some previous events Corbitt appeared at…looks like he has been speaking at church related events or in his church roles for a number of years.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/events/washington-dc-events/ahmad-corbitt-lecture?lang=eng

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/additional-resource/transcript-of-president-ahmad-s-corbitt-s-address

https://www.ensign.edu/devotionals/ahmad-s-corbitt

https://byuicomm.org/byuiscroll/devotional-preview-a-mutual-strengthening-of-faith/

https://news.svu.edu/2018/ahmad-corbitt-to-speak-at-university-convocation/

https://followhim.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/50A-Articles-of-Faith-and-Declarations-1-2-Brother-Ahmed-Corbitt-followHIM-Podcast-ENGLISH.pdf

Nice testimonial with a shot of his family:

http://rjorgensenfamily.blogspot.com/2014/05/dominican-republic-new-mission-president.html

from 2006:

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-5308/

By Brother Wilcox

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/revelations-in-the-summer-of-1978

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/seeing-as-we-are-seen?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/he-denieth-none-that-come-unto-him?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/till-we-all-come-in-the-unity-of-the-faith?lang=eng

https://www.audible.com/pd/Official-Declarations-1-2-Brother-Ahmad-S-Corbitt-Podcast/B09N23KJP9

Looks like he is not a natural FBer, but he tried when first called.

https://www.facebook.com/YM1stCounselor/

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why?  I can see it as troublesome if the only reason was to make the statement for Wilcox of “look, I have a black friend!”, but have you considered there is a great need for black members to see someone who can be seen as part of their voice in active leadership mode and for the rest of the community to see we have black leaders to teach and guide us as well, up front representing them?  By having a black representative of the Church highly visible (given there would be obvious widespread interest in Wilcox’s next appearance) acting in his official church role as a spokesperson for the Church and teaching the youth it is showing that there is a recognition of that need.  This was not some random black church leader.  It is Brother Wilcox’s closest colleague callingwise, a very appropriate choice for a supportive presence..and the guy who takes over being Wilcox’s church boss if his actual boss is unavailable if I understand the hierarchy correctly.  If Brother Corbitt now disappears, it is more likely he was there for damage control rather than an effort to get him a more public face, but why assume the worse until there is more evidence for it.  Local leaders will likely be much more comfortable asking Brother Corbitt to come speak if by chance they weren’t already (I don’t keep up with the youth side of the church, hardly did as a youth, lol; I have no clue about how visible Brother Corbitt is at this point, only knew Wilcox through his Grace talk and seeing his name on books in the DB catalogs).  He was a very personable speaker, even in Zoom which I generally hate.

If Brother Corbitt had been there while Wilcox doubled down on a “listen to me, I know what I am talking about and here is a black man standing next to me”, then I would be thinking Corbitt was there as a prop, a “I have a black friend, so I am not racist, so my words aren’t racist”.  But that wasn’t what Wilcox did, he said he was insensitive and he had been taught and corrected (generally someone is corrected when they are wrong, so the use of that makes me think Wilcox isn’t dismissing this as simply an awkward choice of words or not being PC enough).

In Wilcox’s position, he appears to be troubled by the reaction to his remarks on the Priesthood ban given his almost immediate apology and now speaking first up about it instead of just a side comment in his main presentation.  And hopefully that means he was troubled by his own remarks now as he realizes the hurt they have caused over the years.  Who would you want him to go to for support and help in this case?  Would going to a white friend and colleague somehow be a more authentic choice than finding the man he works side by side with who is black,  who is familiar with the needs of those Wilcox is meant to teach and lead because he is doing the same and with whom Wilcox likely feels he is safe to open his heart to as he struggles to learn better what to say, what not to say, and how to find greater understanding? (They have been working together for at least a couple of years, correct?)

So what if Brother Corbitt then wanted to help his friend scrap the crap off his shoe, help pull his foot out of his mouth (not sure I should be mixing those images), help rehabilitate his friend’s image?  Is he betraying black members by doing so or is he showing that brotherhood should have nothing to do with skin color in the Church?  What a great example of how things should be and can be if we stop looking at people as ‘the other’ and instead think of them as true friends, there for us to support and to be supportive of when we need it along with all the other perqs of friendship.  Sure, it looks one sided because it is Brother Corbitt helping Brother Wilcox out, but I got absolutely no sense from Corbitt he wasn’t all in, that he was reluctant to be there or was there just to do his church duty.  He actually looked like he was having fun from what I saw (I didn’t watch much of his talk).  And I am definitely glad I got to see him in this setting as his personality came out a lot more than in a formal talk.

I agree with what you're saying and liken it to Pres Biden's wish to pick a qualified black woman to be on the supreme court. Recently in Vegas my brother in law thought what Biden wants is racist against whites, silly him, IMO. Because by Biden doing this it will open more doors. 

Anyway, back to what I wanted to mention as well, is that it bothers me that Bro Corbitt didn't discuss the previous firesides when Bro Wilcox gave almost the exact same talks. I've been in several presidencies and know that they get together often in meetings, and surely Bro Corbitt could have stopped Wilcox from giving these talks back when, unless he's the one that Wilcox keeps ignoring. 

ETA: Here's the full talk in case it's not been mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqB8UmnNcqk

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I think this is a harmful bit of speculation. Let's not go down this path anymore.

Perhaps your right ttribe. I've received some pretty straight forward rebukes from people whose opinions I respect like Calm and Juliann.

I meant no aspersions toward Elder Cobertt, though I can see how that was interpreted that way.

I think I am frustrated by the ongoing inability of the Church, at any level, to express what exactly is wrong with the way  people of color, GLBT and women are treated. Too often we seem to be defending leadership, not demanding accountability. So, for me, the appearance of a person of color at this occasion seemed more of a way to defend Wilcox rather than offer explanations of how what he did was wrong.

 

I'll let it go.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Perhaps your right ttribe. I've received some pretty straight forward rebukes from people whose opinions I respect like Calm and Juliann.

I meant no aspersions toward Elder Cobertt, though I can see how that was interpreted that way.

I think I am frustrated by the ongoing inability of the Church, at any level, to express what exactly is wrong with the way  people of color, GLBT and women are treated. Too often we seem to be defending leadership, not demanding accountability. So, for me, the appearance of a person of color at this occasion seemed more of a way to defend Wilcox rather than offer explanations of how what he did was wrong.

 

I'll let it go.

I get it.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A book came out a couple of years ago,  backing up your position, showing how Mormons were regarded as a "mongrel race of polygamists" simply because of the level of theoretical integration in the church.

The very notion that a Black priesthood holder could marry several white women was seen as a horrible abomination, so Mormons were to be avoided at all costs.

There was a presentation at FAIR made by the author

Perhaps @Calm could find it easily.

It's Paul Reeves' Religion of a Different Color. I've read most of it already  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

He has been doing this for years, chances are it is going to take a significant amount of time to not only change his heart, but for him to find a better place to settle his reasoning and defenses at.  There is criticism out there and faithful members who work with other members who are struggling because of these criticisms need to be able to do more than say ‘don’t worry about them’ to be helpful.

I couldn't say. There are so many ways this could go for him, all of it a difficult road, I imagine.

The impact this has had on many individuals is also significant, but I wasn't even beginning to address that. If I did, it would probably have taken a direction that each must determine whether they are going to act in a way that unites or divides, irrespective of how he acts or what happens to him. We are taught correct principles and govern ourselves, just as he did and is going to, hopefully for the better.

I am reminded of Elder Packer's analogy of sharing the gospel as serving cake: you can slice it, lay it attractively on a dessert plate and pass it tenderly, or claw out a hunk from the middle with your hand and toss it over.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I've listened to the latest (13 February) fireside with Brothers Wilcox and Corbitt. Overall I think it was a nice message ("trust in the Lord") that I mostly agree with. The main problem that I still see with the substance of the messages is that they also seem to conflate "trust in the Lord" with "trust in the Church and its leaders." I have seen it said many times that "trust crisis" might be more accurate nomenclature in many cases than "faith crisis," and I don't think this latest fireside really addressed how one should "trust in the Lord" when one is having trouble "trusting in the Church and its leaders."

In some ways, this "trust in the Lord as He leads the Church" message is probably the only real answer that the Church has for these difficult issues. I did not feel like the anecdotes and examples shared by the speakers really addressed the challenges with trusting in the Lord and the Church when facing some of the more difficult issues. Trusting that God really approved of the policy towards those of African descent is, IMO, far different from trusting that God called me to the correct mission.

Perhaps the key thing that they did not even start to address is what it looks like to trust in the Lord when you feel like the Lord is leading you in a different direction from the Church. The speakers just seem to assume that trusting in God is the same as trusting the Church. There are many examples of people who feel that God leads them away from the Church, and, in some ways, those people need even greater trust in God than those who follow the prophet. In some ways, I can appreciate why they might have intentionally avoided this in a fireside for the youth (who are probably mostly young enough to be less mature in their personal moral development and their personal relationship with God and would naturally be less confident in trusting personal revelation over institutional revelation). But, it also seems that, at some point in many people's moral and spiritual development, they run into questions to which "just trust God and the Church" is not a satisfactory answer.

What is an example of this kind of question, in this particular instance?

I would say that one thing some members can do is define their intention, prayerfully come up with a course of action, and with the gift of the Holy Ghost, ask the Lord for confirmation as to whether it is the right thing right to do. Others might ask, "is such and such true / a true principle" with the sincere intent to follow through in keeping it should the Lord confirm that it is true. Then it is up to them to govern themselves.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I agree with what you're saying and liken it to Pres Biden's wish to pick a qualified black woman to be on the supreme court. Recently in Vegas my brother in law thought what Biden wants is racist against whites, silly him, IMO. Because by Biden doing this it will open more doors. 

 

 

Biden should have just done it. Announcing it like that is pandering to his base and racist. 

Ok, I'll go back to my corner now. 

[kimpearson]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Seriously, the First Counselor to Wilcox's Second Counselor is a fireside token? That is as racist as anything Wilcox did. Of course it was a prepared apology, duh? I sure hope the PR department did it after that train disaster. I hope to see a lot more of Bro. Corbitt. When they have someone has charasmatic as he is, he should be the face of the YM's program. Wilcox is too old, to be honest. I only jumped around the video and this and the former fireside have been all I've seen of Wilcox so I still don't understand his popularity so I am not in a position to evaluate it. I do think having Mrs. Wilcox sitting in the background looking like she was on the ready to pounce was strange. I'm glad she finally pushed her way in to say something. It was important to hear from her after her unfortunate post. It left me with a much better impression of her, she sounded assured and in charge. 

I have watched numerous Wilcox firesides from the last year and they have never included another member of the young men's presidency.  I can find no evidence that Bro. Corbitt has given any youth firesides in the last year.  If you had any awareness of the feelings of many black members you would understand the reference to a token black man as that methodology has been used over and over to discredit the concerns of the majority of black in this nation for years.  I will leave you with a excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune article on this.

Troy Mills, a Black Latter-day Saint and scholar of Black religious history, was disappointed by Wilcox’s comments Sunday.

“Unfortunately, I fail to see how this apology advances the conversation,” he said. “He didn’t address the insensitive remarks or why they were insensitive.

Mills, a predoctoral fellow of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, was not especially comforted by Corbitt’s presence or remarks, either.

“There are so many Black Latter-day Saints who understand the history of these issues, but those aren’t the voices that are elevated to address these issues or to leadership positions,” Mills said.

“Instead, you had Brother Corbitt there performing damage control,” he added, “parroting what a white leader would say, with the idea that if the same things are rehashed by a Black person, then it makes it more acceptable.”

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Biden should have just done it. Announcing it like that is pandering to his base and racist. 

Ok, I'll go back to my corner now. 

Was Ronald Reagan sexist for promising during his 1980 campaign that, if elected, he would appoint the first woman to the court?

(or is Reagan a RINO now?)

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

If this was the first time Corbitt was included in the fireside specifically because of what Willcox said and you do not see why that is troublesome, I am not sure we have much to discuss.

I wonder how you would react if out of nowhere you were invited part of  something simple because of the color of your skin?

I don't want to dog pile on you, so I'm going to let it go. I would like to note I meant the question more because I like to be clear where a person is coming from before making my own opinion. 

The only other thing I'd mention is that there is a difference for me of talking at something because of my race and talking/participating in something "simply" (which I read as only or mostly) because of my race. The latter I've only had happen to me a couple of times (usually for very stereotyped activities). It's uncomfortable to say the least and likely disappointing for them (I don't meet their stereotyped expectations) and for me. The former I've done many many many times...I welcome it, because I want people to better understand other experiences and move in a better direction and the only way to do so is through diverse conversations/active participation IMHO. And I'm good at it. This is the category I see Corbitt falling into. He is a colleague/friend working in the exact same presidency. He's not just some random black dude Wilcox happens to know. He's a black man, who's better versed in these issues, was active in helping Wilcox work through some of this, and serves the same area of calling. Pointing to only his race diminishes why he's very qualified to be there with Wilcox. 

 

With luv,

BD

[kimpearson]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Why?  I can see it as troublesome if the only reason was to make the statement for Wilcox of “look, I have a black friend!”, but have you considered there is a great need for black members to see someone who can be seen as part of their voice in active leadership mode and for the rest of the community to see we have black leaders to teach and guide us as well, up front representing them?  By having a black representative of the Church highly visible (given there would be obvious widespread interest in Wilcox’s next appearance) acting in his official church role as a spokesperson for the Church and teaching the youth it is showing that there is a recognition of that need.  This was not some random black church leader.  It is Brother Wilcox’s closest colleague callingwise, a very appropriate choice for a supportive presence..and the guy who takes over being Wilcox’s church boss if his actual boss is unavailable if I understand the hierarchy correctly.  If Brother Corbitt now disappears, it is more likely he was there for damage control rather than an effort to get him a more public face, but why assume the worse until there is more evidence for it.  Local leaders will likely be much more comfortable asking Brother Corbitt to come speak if by chance they weren’t already (I don’t keep up with the youth side of the church, hardly did as a youth, lol; I have no clue about how visible Brother Corbitt is at this point, only knew Wilcox through his Grace talk and seeing his name on books in the DB catalogs).  He was a very personable speaker, even in Zoom which I generally hate.

If Brother Corbitt had been there while Wilcox doubled down on a “listen to me, I know what I am talking about and here is a black man standing next to me”, then I would be thinking Corbitt was there as a prop, a “I have a black friend, so I am not racist, so my words aren’t racist”.  But that wasn’t what Wilcox did, he said he was insensitive and he had been taught and corrected (generally someone is corrected when they are wrong, so the use of that makes me think Wilcox isn’t dismissing this as simply an awkward choice of words or not being PC enough).  Good chance Brother Corbitt was part of that.

In Wilcox’s position, he appears to be troubled by the reaction to his remarks on the Priesthood ban given his almost immediate apology and now speaking first up about it instead of just a side comment in his main presentation.  And hopefully that means he was troubled by his own remarks now as he realizes the hurt they have caused over the years.  Who would you want him to go to for support and help in this case?  Would going to a white friend and colleague somehow be a more authentic choice than finding the man he works side by side with who is black,  who is familiar with the needs of those Wilcox is meant to teach and lead because he is doing the same and with whom Wilcox likely feels he is safe to open his heart to as he struggles to learn better what to say, what not to say, and how to find greater understanding? (They have been working together for at least a couple of years, correct?)

So what if Brother Corbitt then wanted to help his friend scrap the crap off his shoe, help pull his foot out of his mouth (not sure I should be mixing those images), help rehabilitate his friend’s image?  Is he betraying black members by doing so or is he showing that brotherhood should have nothing to do with skin color in the Church?  What a great example of how things should be and can be if we stop looking at people as ‘the other’ and instead think of them as true friends, there for us to support and to be supportive of when we need it along with all the other perqs of friendship.  Sure, it looks one sided because it is Brother Corbitt helping Brother Wilcox out, but I got absolutely no sense from Corbitt he wasn’t all in, that he was reluctant to be there or was there just to do his church duty.  He actually looked like he was having fun from what I saw (I didn’t watch much of his talk).  And I am definitely glad I got to see him in this setting as his personality came out a lot more than in a formal talk.

How many black friends do you have?  You seem to have no idea how offensive it is to many black people to have someone like Brother Corbitt held up as an example of blacks.  Brother Corbitt is a black man living pretty much as a white man.  Listening to him talk, he appears to have almost no connection to the larger black community.  This ploy of holding up a black man as an example of  how great an organization, country, etc.  is doing for blacks in one of the major complaints of the black community.  It just shows white privilege that so many whites are completely blind too.  Once again I will share the thoughts of a black member from the Salt Lake Tribune.

 

Troy Mills, a Black Latter-day Saint and scholar of Black religious history, was disappointed by Wilcox’s comments Sunday.

“Unfortunately, I fail to see how this apology advances the conversation,” he said. “He didn’t address the insensitive remarks or why they were insensitive.

Mills, a predoctoral fellow of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, was not especially comforted by Corbitt’s presence or remarks, either.

“There are so many Black Latter-day Saints who understand the history of these issues, but those aren’t the voices that are elevated to address these issues or to leadership positions,” Mills said.

“Instead, you had Brother Corbitt there performing damage control,” he added, “parroting what a white leader would say, with the idea that if the same things are rehashed by a Black person, then it makes it more acceptable.”

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

wonder how you would react if out of nowhere you were invited part of  something simple because of the color of your skin?

Are you curious about her actual experiences or are you suggesting she needs to try and imagine herself in that kind of situation to relate to how Brother Corbitt is feeling about the situation? 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Was Ronald Reagan sexist for promising during his 1980 campaign that, if elected, he would appoint the first woman to the court?

(or is Reagan a RINO now?)

Yes. Just do it. Presentism, Reagan's category is no longer applicable. The parties have changed moving further apart. Centrist party would be great. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by rodheadlee

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Centrist party would be great.

I agree. Now I'm going to stop with the politics in fear of Nemesis  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It's Paul Reeves' Religion of a Different Color. I've read most of it already  

Oh great, thanks!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

How many black friends do you have? 

Not a lot over all in my life and just a very few now I am pretty housebound (in Utah no less!). In fact I will be quite open and say I have come to rely on Bluedreams a great deal as well as reading some of the blogs by black members.

However I feel very capable to handle the sexist stuff on my own and to rely on my many experiences with my numerous nonmember friends when it came to Brother Wilcox’s comments there, neither of which have been addressed yet, so I am waiting to see what happens there. 
 

Quote

Once again I will share the thoughts of a black member from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Why go to the Trib when we have a black member here responding?

It is weird you are giving out lectures on avoiding black voices when you have yet to interact with one who is responding on this thread in very substantive posts. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

a way that unites or divides, irrespective of how he acts or what happens to him

Sometimes division needs to occur before true unity can happen…could so go with a pruning analogy here.   

[rodheadlee]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree. Now I'm going to stop with the politics in fear of Nemesis  

Plus, we were all sexist back then. We just didn't know it and didn't know any better.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is weird you are giving out lectures on avoiding black voices when you have yet to interacting with one who is responding on this thread in very substantive posts. 

I tried to include my black housemates' opinions/voices on the first page of this thread. No go. Clearly, only certain black voices matter.

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Plus, we were all sexist back then. We just didn't know it and didn't know any better.

Here is an example that haunts me to this day. I was raised that women stayed home and men worked. We had been married one year when I turn down my wife's opportunity to go to a major California University with her dad footing the bill. I turned it down  for 2 reasons. 1. If she wanted to go to USC, I would pay for her. 2. Why would she go if she was going to be a mother?

Well here we are 48 years later and she is still not a mother. What a dumbass I was. Not having an MBA held her back at the top corporate level. She was more qualified in all areas but her job was given to someone that had the degree. Even after an agreement to give her the job and leaving her previous company to get it. She doesn't hold it against me but I do.

[Olmec Donald]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

I truly and sincerely do not want my "dialogue" with Mark to end up as it is now... 

Not that it's any of my beeswax, but you and @mfbukowski are two of the posters whose writings I appreciate the most.  Must admit that sometimes Mark's posts go over my head even when I stand up on my chair.  

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Mark has indicated it might be better if he doesn't respond to my posts and I don't respond to his. On the other hand, I think it is better if I simply go away.

I hope you reconsider.  You speak fluent "Mormon", or a close enough dialect, that imo your unique perspective enriches this forum enormously, at least in my opinion.  Where else would you go where you have so much to offer to readers who are unlikely to otherwise come across it?  For whatever reason, imo you are particularly well-prepared to play the role that you have been playing here. 

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Olmec Donald