Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Paloma said:

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.

Thanks. I have never told anyone they were not Christian. I have never considered Catholics, Missionary Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, etc., not even Calvinists (🙃) not Christians

[Paloma]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

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

I agree there!  So much harder when people seem to revel in and benefit from what we consider bad behaviour. 

I struggle too, but I believe that's especially the time to "dig deep".  I think of Jonah and Ninevah.  And supremely, I think of Jesus' words about "loving your enemies"  and "doing good to those who persecute you".  And then I remember that Jesus didn't have enemies as seen in the parable of The Good Samaritan, and His words on the cross: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do".

But knowing and doing what's right are two different things ... and I struggle like you!

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

Not to be parsimonious, but that would make them Pearl-of-Great-Price clutchers?

Edited February 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

No, it’s the reality of the new world in which we live. Both wings engage, perhaps one more than the other. Kind of reminiscent of the final scene of The Body Snatchers. Just imagine if STASI had had cell phones. 🤫

I reckon he has been effectively cancelled in a number of ways. 
 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

“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 Church’s “Gospel Library”

This topic is of particular interest to me. I recall the first time I encountered a Seventy who called and set apart a new Stake president. I asked him if he had been given the keys that he could then bestow those keys on the SP. He answered that he did not receive a laying on of hands to receive keys or anything like that, but he did receive a letter assigning him to attend the Stake conference, call and set apart new leaders, and that was authority enough to bestow keys on the new SP. His authority was granted by virtue of delegation from one who did hold the keys. This seems similar to Wilcox's statement (and others) about women exercising the priesthood even though they don't have keys and haven't been ordained. 

I thought the explanation then was strange and I still do. It leaves me wondering about the value of mass ordination of men and boys in the church as opposed to just the few leaders who would hold keys and then delegate assignments so that others functioned under their priesthood. To me, this concept calls into question the necessity of priesthood ordination and keys at all. After all, couldn't the prophet and apostles function under delegated priesthood from God without a physical laying on of hands? Couldn't a bishop function without the keys if he was assigned by the SP? It was clearly important enough for Joseph to receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands which set the standard, expectation, teaching, theology around the possession and passing of priesthood keys. How many of us have a copy of our "priesthood lineage" precisely for the reason of showing that we truly have priesthood. Why would that even matter if working under delegated keys without ordination was equally valid?

I'm curious to read your thoughts on this.

[Rivers]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Things often sound a lot worse when they get sensationalized online.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Things often sound a lot worse when they get sensationalized online.

THat's why it's good that we can actually hear Bro. Wilcox saying this stuff.  So we don't have to rely on anyone else's reports.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Maybe its as simple as this...

Youth comes home from fireside. Parents ask how it was. "It was fine." What did they talk about? "Church stuff."  (I can truly picture that conversation  )

How many youth paid close attention, or even if they did and had concerns were able to talk to parents or leaders about it without video evidence (if the parent or leader wasn't also present).

But I think the culture has shifted dramatically over the past 5-10 years and the change in technology has been equally rapid. Frankly, Wilcox may just be really lucky nothing came out until now.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Things often sound a lot worse when they get sensationalized online.

I've seen accounts where he has received push back but it was ignored. I think our bias is to give a leader the benefit of the doubt but when the evidence is clear, that doubt disappears. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This topic is of particular interest to me. I recall the first time I encountered a Seventy who called and set apart a new Stake president. I asked him if he had been given the keys that he could then bestow those keys on the SP. He answered that he did not receive a laying on of hands to receive keys or anything like that, but he did receive a letter assigning him to attend the Stake conference, call and set apart new leaders, and that was authority enough to bestow keys on the new SP. His authority was granted by virtue of delegation from one who did hold the keys. This seems similar to Wilcox's statement (and others) about women exercising the priesthood even though they don't have keys and haven't been ordained. 

I thought the explanation then was strange and I still do. It leaves me wondering about the value of mass ordination of men and boys in the church as opposed to just the few leaders who would hold keys and then delegate assignments so that others functioned under their priesthood. To me, this concept calls into question the necessity of priesthood ordination and keys at all. After all, couldn't the prophet and apostles function under delegated priesthood from God without a physical laying on of hands? Couldn't a bishop function without the keys if he was assigned by the SP? It was clearly important enough for Joseph to receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands which set the standard, expectation, teaching, theology around the possession and passing of priesthood keys. How many of us have a copy of our "priesthood lineage" precisely for the reason of showing that we truly have priesthood. Why would that even matter if working under delegated keys without ordination was equally valid?

I'm curious to read your thoughts on this.

Great topic for another discussion maybe?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This topic is of particular interest to me. I recall the first time I encountered a Seventy who called and set apart a new Stake president. I asked him if he had been given the keys that he could then bestow those keys on the SP. He answered that he did not receive a laying on of hands to receive keys or anything like that, but he did receive a letter assigning him to attend the Stake conference, call and set apart new leaders, and that was authority enough to bestow keys on the new SP. His authority was granted by virtue of delegation from one who did hold the keys. This seems similar to Wilcox's statement (and others) about women exercising the priesthood even though they don't have keys and haven't been ordained. 

I thought the explanation then was strange and I still do. It leaves me wondering about the value of mass ordination of men and boys in the church as opposed to just the few leaders who would hold keys and then delegate assignments so that others functioned under their priesthood. To me, this concept calls into question the necessity of priesthood ordination and keys at all. After all, couldn't the prophet and apostles function under delegated priesthood from God without a physical laying on of hands? Couldn't a bishop function without the keys if he was assigned by the SP? It was clearly important enough for Joseph to receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands which set the standard, expectation, teaching, theology around the possession and passing of priesthood keys. How many of us have a copy of our "priesthood lineage" precisely for the reason of showing that we truly have priesthood. Why would that even matter if working under delegated keys without ordination was equally valid?

I'm curious to read your thoughts on this.

I’ll have to think on it a bit and maybe do some studying before I express any thoughts. 
 

Incidentally, you may already be aware of this, but I’ll just mention that what Brother Wilcox said about women exercising priesthood by having received delegated authority is similar to what Dallin H. Oaks said on this subject a while ago in general conference. 

[Calm]

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.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll have to think on it a bit and maybe do some studying before I express any thoughts. 
 

Incidentally, you may already be aware of this, but I’ll just mention that what Brother Wilcox said about women exercising priesthood by having received delegated authority is similar to what Dallin H. Oaks said on this subject a while ago in general conference. 

Thanks.

Yes- I'm aware of Oaks. I remember when he said it. It seemed very exciting, but I think Wilcox took it a step farther than Oaks. Oaks said something like "of course women exercise priesthood. What other authority is there?" But Wilcox is saying "women exercise the priesthood but don't need ordination or keys" implying that it is still equal when I think most people would recognize that it's not.

 

[Freedom]

On 2/8/2022 at 8:31 AM, juliann said:

This cut off for me after about 11 min, , but what I did hear is beyond description awful. He is trying very hard to be cool or hip or whatever but there is a noticeable lack of laughter. He mocked concerns over the priesthood ban, he mocked women, he demeaned other religions. And that was just 11 minutes. 

The problem with a brief apology is that only works if it was a single gaffe sort of thing. This was an ongoing assault.

Here is a transcript from a FAIR conference talk of his on grace which hopefully redeems him somewhat. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2018/have-you-been-saved-by-grace

But does he apologize? I do not believe he did. He has used this language in the past so it is entrenched in his belief system. He did not mean offense but he meant what he said. It is due to words like this that women are hurt and are leaving the church. If you want to loose your testimony of the gospel, attend BYU.

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 But for someone who makes those kinds of horrendous presentations, future presentations probably should be cancelled. Would you agree?

But then how would we know if he had grown, learned, repented, matured?  Maybe cancel some near-future presentations, but not all of them for all time.  Reprove him with sharpness, sure, but be sure to show an increase of love afterwards.  Allow him the same space to overcome his weaknesses that we allow for ourselves. 

[Rain]

 

 

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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?

In context, I'm assuming "we" means the church.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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?

I would say the church means no, but there will be people who say yes.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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)?

I would say the church means no, but there will be people who say yes.

 

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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?

That's a really good question that I don't think has been adequately addressed. The sacrament is not listed as a saving ordinance by the church (yes, I know some feel it is).  But there is obviously some difference between it and prayer when you have to get permission to do it.  So logic would suggest either it is different.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What do we really believe about women and priesthood?

Really good question.  As a woman I can tell you a couple of things, but not enough to really give an answer to that question.

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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?

Honestly, I think he had to be using the wrong term.  Either that or Paloma had it right that he is ignorant of the people or the meaning of the word.

Saying that I wondered if I was ignorant of the word. Another meaning from the dictionary than we generally think of for pretend:

"to claim, represent, or assert falsely"

Now we get a little tricky here if this is the meaning he intended.

I didn't hear the talk so I don't know exactly his words when he was talking about pretending.  If he is talking about authority that other churches pretend/claim then I have to say that he might be right that this is a church teaching. 

But if he is talking about other churches pretend/make believe their sincerity then we/the church doesn't believe that in most cases. 

 

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Rain

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But then how would we know if he had grown, learned, repented, matured?  Maybe cancel some near-future presentations, but not all of them for all time.  Reprove him with sharpness, sure, but be sure to show an increase of love afterwards.  Allow him the same space to overcome his weaknesses that we allow for ourselves. 

Why do we need to know if he had grown, learned, repented, matured. That's not our business.

We do not need to allow him the stature and the public forum to continue teaching this message. Nor do we need to have him prove repentance. Sometimes it's best to just move on.

[juliann]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

How would you even do that unless it is a local person? There is no one to sound an alarm to...the best that could happen is he doesn't get invited back if you complain to the organizers. But someone of that rank wouldn't be back anyway.  He would be off to the next gig. 

I am reading quite a few accounts of his giving the same talk for years.....also accounts of what a wonderfully nice person he is. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why do we need to know if he had grown, learned, repented, matured. That's not our business.

We do not need to allow him the stature and the public forum to continue teaching this message. Nor do we need to have him prove repentance. Sometimes it's best to just move on.

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

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe its as simple as this...

Youth comes home from fireside. Parents ask how it was. "It was fine." What did they talk about? "Church stuff."  (I can truly picture that conversation  )

How many youth paid close attention, or even if they did and had concerns were able to talk to parents or leaders about it without video evidence (if the parent or leader wasn't also present).

But I think the culture has shifted dramatically over the past 5-10 years and the change in technology has been equally rapid. Frankly, Wilcox may just be really lucky nothing came out until now.

Could be. Though I’ve never been to a stake youth fireside that didn’t have a dozen or more adults in attendance. Conferences and multi stake stuff would have much more. And then we times that by a dozen or so of these talks a year, over a dozen years (I believe Bokovy said 20+ years didn’t he?  It could have been someone else), and that’s a lot of adults hearing this stuff too.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

I must have missed that. What did his wife say?

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

Yes- I'm aware of Oaks. I remember when he said it. It seemed very exciting, but I think Wilcox took it a step farther than Oaks. Oaks said something like "of course women exercise priesthood. What other authority is there?" But Wilcox is saying "women exercise the priesthood but don't need ordination or keys" implying that it is still equal when I think most people would recognize that it's not.

 

He was using the old saw about women (he almost always says girls) having an innate worthiness that men don't come with. That is why they can do stuff in the temple that men need to be ordained for. I wouldn't compare this to Oaks at all. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

How would you even do that unless it is a local person? There is no one to sound an alarm to...the best that could happen is he doesn't get invited back if you complain to the organizers. But someone of that rank wouldn't be back anyway.  He would be off to the next gig. 

I am reading quite a few accounts of his giving the same talk for years.....also accounts of what a wonderfully nice person he is. 

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.

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why do we need to know if he had grown, learned, repented, matured. That's not our business.

We do not need to allow him the stature and the public forum to continue teaching this message. Nor do we need to have him prove repentance. Sometimes it's best to just move on.

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. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon
typo

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I must have missed that. What did his wife say?

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.