Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:20 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

The first clip reminds me of things I've heard my former housemate from Sierra Leone say in response to people's questions. In short, all disciples have to trust God's timing.

Others have suggested that God was always willing to accommodate a righteous people, but was always prevented by their stiffnecked attitude and disbelief.  That is the description of the recalcitrant Nephites in the Book of Mormon.  And of the Israelites led out of Egypt by Moses.  Getting the congregation to follow the Lord is easier said than done.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

This is why it always has interests me that in general, Catholics and Latter Day Saints seem to often get along in religious discussions. I've seen it not just here but in other venues as well. It's ironic because like you said, our faith claims are directly opposed to each other 

And yet in so many ways our faith claims are isomorphic.

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where have you been over the years when I needed you?

As former BYU Athletic Director Glen Tuckett said once, "I can never remember a time when I've said too little ... but, boy, would I like a dime for every time I've said too much!"

[Bernard Gui]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was a tristake fireside, it might have been recorded to be saved because it was seen as different than the usual local ones.

Possibly. Do you know if the tri-stake folks released it on the internet?

Edited February 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As former BYU Athletic Director Glen Tuckett said once, "I can never remember a time when I've said too little ... but, boy, would I like a dime for every time I've said too much!"

I resemble that remark!

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

Randy Bott was a BYU professor. Brother Wilcox is a counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency. I think that's the difference here. One is more painful and embarrassing to "fire" than the other. A lot more. 

Bro Wilcox is also a BYU professor. We’ll see how the chips fall. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Possibly. Do you know if the tri-stake folks released it on the internet?

Not a clue, but I may know someone who knows now that I think of it.  Will report if I get any info.

[Paloma]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I didn't watch the speaker and I only skimmed a bit here and there on the thread, but I do want to address the "pretending church" comment. Obviously, I think he's wrong, but I'm not personally offended by it. I think it's because it comes from such a place of ignorance that it just doesn't affect me. I know that I am not pretending church. If he came and spent a day at the monastery with me he would know the monks aren't pretending church, either.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance.

In this case, I think he's just ignorant.

If someone who knew me accused me of pretending church, that would probably be a different matter, though, because the accusation wouldn't come from ignorance since they know me.

Also on a somewhat related note, as a Catholic, I have a hard time getting upset with the exclusive "only true church" claims of your church, as some do. I mean, we make those claims, too. You don't accept our baptism, and we don't accept yours. You claim apostasy, which excludes us, but we claim apostolic succession, which excludes you.

Anyways, carry on  

 

MN, you said "I didn't watch the speaker".

I did watch the speaker, and that made all the difference. 

There's no question he was mocking everyone in the Christian world other than his own church.  It wasn't the difference of opinion that I found repugnant but the condescension and specific example of an anecdote about marriage (that came across to me as unbelievable), among other offensive attitudes and statements in general.

I agree with you that opinions of those who don't know us are in a much different classification from those who do, and I like your aphorism:  "Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance".  I see its applicability here.

I've mentioned this example here before, but I think it's relevant.  About 20 years ago, I would take various groups of Latter-day Saint missionaries out for lunch on P-day - usually 2 or 3 companionships at a time.  I developed deep friendships over 18 months or so.  There was always at least one missionary who knew me well at those lunches.  One day a "new" junior missionary decided to be confrontational about faith issues (something we didn't normally do though we would ask questions of each other's faith in a collegial way).  He came right out and said (to the best of my recollection): "I just want to tell you you're a fake.  I don't know who you think you are! We are Christians and you're not, end of story".   Two of the missionaries that day who knew me well were furious.  It was as if someone had just rudely insulted their beloved Mom.

When that young missionary said, "I don't know who you think you are!",  I felt like saying "I'm the person who's paying for your 'all you can eat' buffet lunch", but I didn't.

Because he didn't know me and because I saw him as a rash, overzealous missionary, I wasn't offended.  (But I do remember it, so there's that!)

Edited February 9, 2022 by Paloma

[JAHS]

Ah well. this too shall pass.....like a kidney stone. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Durangout said:

Wilcox really got “put on the map” with his wonderful talk on Grace.  His explanation / talk was far better than any apostle’s on the subject that I’d heard.  He became popular; everybody wanted to be in his class; he was in high demand at Women’s (not Girl’s) conference; people told him how great he was—and he began to believe it. 

IMHuO this is the downside of popularity…in and out of the Church. Takes a huge sense of humility to avoid the pitfalls. It’s a rare person who can avoid it. 

[MrShorty]

10 pages into the thread is probably way too late to say this, but, in many ways, I feel like focusing on Br. Wilcox is a distraction from the real issue -- what does the Church really believe about the things that were taught?

Do we really believe that the 1978 revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to all was part of God's timing? That God is solely responsible for the implementation and deimplementation (lacking the right word here) of the ban and that all of the history of the ban is exactly how God wanted it to play out? Or are there human elements to the implementation, justification, and deimplementation of the ban? What do we really believe about the ban?

Do we really believe that among the reasons women are not ordained to priesthood offices is because they are inherently "better" than men (or that men are inherently inferior to women)? Do we believe that those who were denied the sacrament during the pandemic because they did not have a priesthood holder in the home or near enough to provide the actual ordinance were equally served by reading the prayers and pondering the truths therein? What do we really believe about women and priesthood?

Do we really believe that those of other faiths (Christian only or all faiths?) are "pretending" at Church, or do we believe that their sincerity is meaningful to God? What does it really mean to us to be "the only true and living Church on the Earth?"

So much of the discussion seems to focus on Br. Wilcox and whether he was just parrotting what he was taught or what will happen to him now. I think the bigger questions are around how much truth was in Br. Wilcox's talk(s). Note that my use of truth here may not be the same thing as what the Church has taught or even currently teaches. I've always believed that we Latter-day Saints are all about finding Truth (capital T) whether or not we like what we find. Personally, the real discomfort I feel is that I don't believe any of the things Br. Wilcox said are True, but I also am uncertain if the Church agrees with me.

[Paloma]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Wilcox often aims his comments at people his comments will have little affect on. A lot of the anecdotes he uses to address difficult issues are fun small talk or preaching to the choir type statements. The type you use to make fun of those who aren’t in the club. But for those who are actually struggling with the issues, his statements have little affect, if not just creating more frustration for them.

But what do those "fun" things reveal about the person inside?  

I see this as a 'discipleship' issue where it's good to search our hearts in the light of God's love.  We are called to be Christlike!

I don't see you condoning what he said, Fether so please don't think I'm directing this at you, the commentator.

Just musing ...

[Fether]

Just now, Paloma said:

But what do those "fun" things reveal about the person inside?  

I see this as a 'discipleship' issue where it's good to search our hearts in the light of God's love.  We are called to be Christlike!

I don't see you condoning what he said, Fether so please don't think I'm directing this at you, the commentator.

Just musing ...

I just think he is naive about some topics but still chooses to address them. Most people that do hurtful things don’t do it on purpose. Most people are just blind to their flaws. You don’t know what you don’t know.

Despite my dislike for his talks, I still look up to Wilcox and think he is a great man

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does the presidency of the quorum of seventy hold keys?

Presidency of the Seventy. Together, the seven men preside over all of the quorums of the Seventy, including those comprised of Area Seventies. 
 

But they don’t hold keys. They have authority delegated to them from the Twelve (see quote in my post below). 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMHuO this is the downside of popularity…in and out of the Church. Takes a huge sense of humility to avoid the pitfalls. It’s a rare person who can avoid it. 

It’s a challenge but not insurmountable. Elder Uchtdorf has handled his popularity well. Elder Maxwell was a common ‘favorite speaker’ for many members. Neither of them had a slip up. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

From what I can tell, the bodies and quorums which constitute the General Authorities are all ones where the head of that body or quorum holds priesthood keys.
The General Officers of the Church have authority delegated to them but priesthood keys are not contained within the organizations.

General officers have ancillary roles. They support the General Authorities, who carry out the spiritual and administrative leadership in the Church. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

From what I can tell, the bodies and quorums which constitute the General Authorities are all ones where the head of that body or quorum holds priesthood keys.
The General Officers of the Church have authority delegated to them but priesthood keys are not contained within the organizations.

 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does the presidency of the quorum of seventy hold keys?

“Duties of the Seventy

“Latter-day revelations provide that the Seventy are “to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses [of Jesus Christ] … in all the world” (D&C 107:25). Furthermore, they “are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve … in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations” (D&C 107:34).
“The unique and singular calling of the Seventy is clearly established in the revelations: “It is the duty of the [Twelve] to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel, instead of any others” (D&C 107:38).
“The Seventy do not receive additional priesthood keys, but with each assignment they receive from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they are delegated authority to accomplish the assignment given.”

The above is from the “Gospel Library” on the Church website and the mobile app. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, Paloma said:

MN, you said "I didn't watch the speaker".

I did watch the speaker, and that made all the difference. 

There's no question he was mocking everyone in the Christian world other than his own church.  It wasn't the difference of opinion that I found repugnant but the condescension and specific example of an anecdote about marriage (that came across to me as unbelievable), among other offensive attitudes and statements in general.

I agree with you that opinions of those who don't know us are in a much different classification from those who do, and I like your aphorism:  "Never ascribe to malice to that which can be ascribed to ignorance".  I see its applicability here.

I've mentioned this example here before, but I think it's relevant.  About 20 years ago, I would take various groups of Latter-day Saint missionaries out for lunch on P-day - usually 2 or 3 companionships at a time.  I developed deep friendships over 18 months or so.  There was always at least one missionary who knew me well at those lunches.  One day a "new" junior missionary decided to be confrontational about faith issues (something we didn't normally do though we would ask questions of each other's faith in a collegial way).  He came right out and said (to the best of my recollection): "I just want to tell you you're a fake.  I don't know who you think you are! We are Christians and you're not, end of story".   Two of the missionaries that day who knew me well were furious.  It was as if someone had just rudely insulted their beloved Mom.

When that young missionary said, "I don't know who you think you are!",  I felt like saying "I'm the person who's paying for your 'all you can eat' buffet lunch", but I didn't.

Because he didn't know me and because I saw him as a rash, overzealous missionary, I wasn't offended.  (But I do remember it, so there's that!)

That was unfortunate. I hope he matured into his calling. 

Sister Gui and I had a good friend whose father was a Missionary Baptist pastor. We had a number of good conversations with her about the Church. She adamantly insisted we were not Christians, but her questions were usually sourced from anti-Mormon materials. The conversations (instigated by her) were always cordial. One day I asked her why we call God “our Father.” She said something like “I need help on that one,” and made a phone call. A few minutes later there was a knock at the door. In walked her dad and his assistant pastor carrying their Bibles over their hearts. We had a great discussion, but it was made clear that they did not consider us to be Christians.
 

And I remember my dad (who was Catholic)  saying to the missionaries whenever mom had them over for dinner, “You can eat my food, but you can’t cram your religion down my throat!” When he passed away we discovered in his wallet the calling cards of Elders Stewart and Hirschi who had baptized him 40 years earlier. I was able to contact Elder Hirschi and tell him my father’s story. 
 

[Paloma]

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

I just think he is naive about some topics but still chooses to address them. Most people that do hurtful things don’t do it on purpose. Most people are just blind to their flaws. You don’t know what you don’t know.

Despite my dislike for his talks, I still look up to Wilcox and think he is a great man

So true.

I think that giving grace and choosing to think the best of a person are good ways to go!

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This one was broadcast over zoom and disseminated to a wide audience. There is evidence. Look at George Floyd. People have complained about police violence for years and years, but once you can see it on video it makes it irrefutable. 
 

What if someone came on this forum and complained about a horrible talk from Wilcox. People would ask for context and would generally give the GO the benefit of the doubt over the complainer. When you can actually go and listen to an hour of cringe? It’s undeniable. 

Maybe that's it.

But I'm more wondering why I haven't heard any concern from the hundreds (thousands?) of people who have heard this talk or one's like it in person.  Yeah, I'd probably give the benefit of the doubt to someone if there was no evidence presented to support the accusation, but I haven't even heard any accusations until this week.  Has anyone else?  Have people--who have been present for these talks--been sounding the alarm and no one is listening?

[Fether]

7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

So true.

I think that giving grace and choosing to think the best of a person are good ways to go!

I’m good at giving grace when the person is struggling. But I struggle giving grace to people I view as thriving sometimes.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The mob of commenters on the YouTube video and elsewhere, any others who want to see his humiliation and cancellation. 

The continual talk of "cancellation" comes off a bit right-wingy. Not sure if that's intentional or not.

Cancel culture can undoubtedly take things too far but I don't see that happening in this case. But for someone who makes those kinds of horrendous presentations, future presentations probably should be cancelled. Would you agree?

[Paloma]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That was unfortunate. I hope he matured into his calling. 

Sister Gui and I had a good friend whose father was a Missionary Baptist pastor. We had a number of good conversations with her about the Church. She adamantly insisted we were not Christians, but her questions were usually sourced from anti-Mormon materials. The conversations (instigated by her) were always cordial. One day I asked her why we call God “our Father.” She said something like “I need help on that one,” and made a phone call. A few minutes later there was a knock at the door. In walked her dad and his assistant pastor carrying their Bibles over their hearts. We had a great discussion, but it was made clear that they did not consider us to be Christians.
 

And I remember my dad (who was Catholic)  saying to the missionaries whenever mom had them over for dinner, “You can eat my food, but you can’t cram your religion down my throat!” When he passed away we discovered in his wallet the calling cards of Elders Stewart and Hirschi who had baptized him 40 years earlier. I was able to contact Elder Hirschi and tell him my father’s story. 
 

Bernard Gui, thank you for your response to my story and for sharing yours!  It's fascinating, especially your 2nd story where you had something very important to tell Elder Hirschi.

I am genuinely sad when I think of how Christians have accused others of not being Christ-followers.  And while I've never overtly accused anyone, I know there was a time when I saw people as "in" or "out" in a way that I don't anymore.  I'm not one to judge others because I know myself and my own journey too well ... and God continues to pour His love and conviction on me.

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

It’s a challenge but not insurmountable. Elder Uchtdorf has handled his popularity well. Elder Maxwell was a common ‘favorite speaker’ for many members. Neither of them had a slip up. 

Yes. I agree.  Rare individuals can handle it. 

[jkwilliams]

Obviously the best answer for a believer would be “we don’t know the reasons for the priesthood restrictions.” That people for over a century and a half have gone into various speculative rabbit holes suggests that the teaching is troubling to these folks. 

For an unbeliever, the law of parsimony suggests that the appearance of 19th-century American rationalizations for slavery in LDS doctrine means the doctrine is a product of 19th-century America. The problem for believers is that these late rationalizations are codified in allegedly ancient scriptures. Of course, that’s not an issue for pearl-clutchers like me. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by jkwilliams