Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like how Zandra from the Sistas in Zion put it.

If we are still asking kids and adults to pretend to do Trek, then we can't say that the ban was so long ago that it doesn't matter anymore, or we can't say that we shouldn't dwell on things that were in the past.  Clearly we believe in dwelling on the past and even in recreating some of it.  

So we do need to address this issue.

My wife is dreading church this Sunday because she knows someone will bring up the issue of Wilcox's remarks and inevitably someone(s) in the ward will feel the need to give their own take on why the ban existed, which will of course be off the mark and lead us to need to provide a 'corrective teaching' for our children after church. 

[Vanguard]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Part of the problem here is that we don't know the comment that elicited this response. It may have been every bit as unhinged as Sis. Wilcox's appears to be. Regardless, her response reminds me of how unpolished even those in our leadership ranks can be  when it comes to managing challenges/disagreements. It discourages me that fellow Saints (and those who are highly respected!) respond in a public forum in this way. Haven't the Wilcox's talked about how to respond in public forums? Good grief. Seriously, none of us on this forum should take for granted how much refining and polishing we've undergone just for being here. ; )

Edited February 9, 2022 by Vanguard

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Part of the problem here is that we don't know the comment that elicited this response. It may have been every bit as unhinged as Sis. Wilcox's appears to be. Regardless, her response reminds me of how unpolished even those in our leadership ranks can be  when it comes to managing challenges/disagreements. It discourages me that fellow Saints (and those who are highly respected!) respond in a public forum in this way. Haven't the Wilcox's talked about how to respond in public forums? Good grief. Seriously, none of us on this forum should take for granted how much refining and polishing we've undergone just for being here. ; )

My point was that it’s best to move on and not respond, even to the unhinged folks. 

[Duncan]

I think given everything he probably should be released, he was called 2 years ago and probably has another 2 to go or so. If he was done to his last 6 months left in his calling they could wait it out but given he was called 2 years ago, maybe that's enough for him. I think he should lay low for quite awhile as I don't see him getting asked to give anymore firesides anytime soon in any forum. I think with Elder McConkie they sent him out as a mission president after his Mormon Doctrine fiasco and Elder Benson became the West European Mission President after he made comments that infuriated many people, including allegations that it was his talk that caused someone to put a bomb on one of the SLC Temple doors and wreck that and destroy some of the interior, so it was best he leave the continent. I think they should retire Wilcox (except he has already served as a MP in Chile) so they could do whatever, wherever with him or nothing with him.

[strappinglad]

Seems you can't win for losing.

Compare Luke 9 : 50 and Matt 12: 30

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

And then, after an appropriate amount of time, show forth an increase in love and allow them to make another presentation to see if they've learned, grown, matured. 

Rather than doing another public presentation, I would suggest taking a sabbatical if they don’t want to fire him, provide private counseling/training sessions and doing so immediately. And he can present to church leaders rather than the public. Maybe a focus group of random members to see their response before he steps into the public stage again.  I don’t think the public needs to be the guinea pigs for his repentance/refinement process.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

My wife is dreading church this Sunday because she knows someone will bring up the issue of Wilcox's remarks and inevitably someone(s) in the ward will feel the need to give their own take on why the ban existed, which will of course be off the mark and lead us to need to provide a 'corrective teaching' for our children after church. 

Go prepared with the church's essays on the subject I guess, so that you can just keep repeating the church's official stance on it.  We need to stop giving our own take on things like this.  That's what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

[Duncan]

Why does he need to even talk about this stuff? he seems to be the one bringing it up, the youth aren't.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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

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

I don't advocate for Bro. Wilcox to lose his job or be released from his calling (though I really don't know how he'll ever be able to speak in GC again), but I also don't know that it's smart to give someone with a history of teaching harmful personal interpretations a venue with an audience and just hope that they've learned, grown, and matured.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Moneymaking said:

Here is yet another video. I didn’t see this anywhere in this thread. Forgive me if it is a repeat. 
 

 

Ach…again dismissive of other faiths…no one else cares about Chastity or the Sabbath.  There are many faith groups who are more respectful of the Sabbath then we are.   And guess he has decided to ignore all the abstinence only groups 

Very close to the beginning of the talk…

His expression and tone when he says “everyone else has been saved for the last days, but they don’t talk like….”  There is a tone of dislike imo. Maybe anger from being hurt. Maybe I am seeing things, but it is really striking to me.
 

Between this and the other talk, I am getting the impression he doesn’t care for ‘the rest of the world’.  That he is modeling this disdain for those not of our faith…I am troubled by it.  And much less willing to think it is just about having some wrong ideas/beliefs and not about an attitude towards others that is much harder to change, especially if he has been cultivating it for years. 
 

And what I saw before as awkwardness, nerves seems more like bluster and dramatizing to make it entertaining. He is coming across to me someone secure in his ideas, he has said a few things that convey the sense he sees himself as the one with the answers, the one to be listened to and his words repeated (like his use of the GOSPEL that would then be used by the audience in Sacrament talks).  Stuff I didn’t catch before or see completely differently now I know this is routine for him. 
 

I would love to see a recognition by him that his perceptions of other faiths are inaccurate, but I can see him dismissing any concerns by saying people know he is making a general point so he doesn’t need to be precise or he will be too arrogant to consider he is wrong. However, one thing that seems very consistent is he is seen as kind (which is so contradictory to his disrespect of nonmembers) and his talk on grace is good, so maybe there is yet another side of him that will shift my perception again and I will see greater possibility that he will approach criticism open-mindedly   and not shut it immediately down like his wife appears to have (we are often more rigid in defending others than ourselves).

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Go prepared with the church's essays on the subject I guess, so that you can just keep repeating the church's official stance on it.  We need to stop giving our own take on things like this.  That's what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Agreed. I've got the essays on speed dial. Still doesn't stop people from trying to fill the void. Nature abhors a vaccuum. 

[Vanguard]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My point was that it’s best to move on and not respond, even to the unhinged folks. 

Agreed. And part of my point was that I'm surprised the Wilcox's have not privately discussed how to handle social networks where hundreds (thousands?) of folks read and comment. That would be one of the first things I would discuss with my wife. It reminds me of politicians of all stripes who say the darn'dest things in public. My wife & I look at each other and scratch out heads frequently. ; )

Edited February 9, 2022 by Vanguard

[Buckeye]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Why does he need to even talk about this stuff? he seems to be the one bringing it up, the youth aren't.

Its common where I live for members/youth to be asked to submit questions in advance of firesides, especially ones with high up church leaders. I imagine he's read many questions regarding the hard issues during his service and sincerely wants to provide comforting answers. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Its common where I live for members/youth to be asked to submit questions in advance of firesides, especially ones with high up church leaders. I imagine he's read many questions regarding the hard issues during his service and sincerely wants to provide comforting answers. 

I went to one here a few years ago and the first question was about abortion! the GA wife had 3 D&C's so she gave her opinion

[Stormin' Mormon]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't advocate for Bro. Wilcox to lose his job or be released from his calling (though I really don't know how he'll ever be able to speak in GC again), but I also don't know that it's smart to give someone with a history of teaching harmful personal interpretations a venue with an audience and just hope that they've learned, grown, and matured.

I get that and would agree with most of what you say here.  I just have a problem with permanent, never-ending punishments. 

It's not an issue here, but what if it were a 25-year old who taught these things at multiple firesides over the course of many years?  Would he be barred from speaking for the rest of his life, the next 50+ years?  I'm hardly the same person I was when I was 25.  And if we allow a 25 year old to grow, change, and mature, why would we not allow it for a 35 year old, a 45 year old, or a 65 year old? 

Edited to add: I think I've been clear here and in my other comments, but in case I haven't been, let me repeat.  I am not advocating for no punishment, no consequences.  I don't think what Bro. Wilcox said was defensible.  I just think that whatever sanctions are applied against him should have the possibility of being removed at some point in the future.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

Just now, Stormin' Mormon said:

I get that and would agree with most of what you say here.  I just have a problem with permanent, never-ending punishments. 

It's not an issue here, but what if it were a 25-year old who taught these things at multiple firesides over the course of many years?  Would he be barred from speaking for the rest of his life, the next 50+ years?  I'm hardly the same person I was when I was 25.  And if we allow a 25 year old to grow, change, and mature, why would we not allow it for a 35 year old, a 45 year old, or a 65 year old? 

 

Is not being asked to speak at firesides on frequent gospel questions punishment though?  I mean, it's not like a right that is being withheld.  Most people go their entire lives and never speak at a fireside on these topics.  

I don't see Bro. Wilcox not doing these extracurricular speaking gigs anymore as a punishment.  It seems like a natural consequence (not in the negative way) that happens when you talk at a fireside and really make a huge mess of it, that you don't get many more invitations.

[bluebell]

Has this been brought up yet?  https://kutv.com/news/local/president-byu-brigham-young-unversity-black-student-union-reacts-to-professor-brad-wilcox-remarks-3rd-video?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&sfmc_id=231039&utm_guid=8d81e4a9-b449-48cd-abe8-64d3e6e65cb4&utm_campaign=

The President of the BYU Black Student Union has given his thoughts.

“I don’t think he needs to resign,” said Nate Byrd. “I don’t think he needs to be fired or anything like that. But I just think he needs to be aware that his words have consequences and that he needs to focus more using the scriptures in the things that he says as opposed to just expressing his opinions.”

“There’s been a lot of, I guess you could say, outrage and frustration, and also a little bit of satisfaction because this is something that’s been going on for a long time,” said Byrd. “This is not the first time that he’s made those remarks but it is the first time there’s been some of accountability for it.”

“This is not a new thing for us,” he said. “There’s always been ignorant people in the church who say and do ridiculous things and so we’ve kind of gotten accustomed to that. Our options are really either to extend grace and understanding or to just leave or give up altogether. For most of us the second one isn’t really an option for the time being so we would much rather use this as an opportunity to educate and prevent further instances like this.”

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

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

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

Perhaps. But I don’t think the pressure will ever let up. 

[Rivers]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 It's not just a matter of how he said it, the beliefs behind what he said (even if he said it more articulately) is still a problem. The condescension and sexism and racism will not find an audience (at least not the kind the church wants) in today's culture.

Saying dumb or wrong things about race and sex isn’t necessarily racist or sexist.

[Stormin' Mormon]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is not being asked to speak at firesides on frequent gospel questions punishment though?  

No, it's not a punishment. A poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps "negative consequence imposed by a third party." Or NCIBATP for short.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with any sort of permanent NCIBATP. I'm trying to think of one I would be comfortable with, but, short of the most heinous of crimes, none are coming to mind immediately.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon
Additional text

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“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.”

If the First Presidency and the Twelve wiped out, the Seventy possesses the keys as a quorum and could repair the Church with that same authority.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I like how Zandra from the Sistas in Zion put it.

If we are still asking kids and adults to pretend to do Trek, then we can't say that the ban was so long ago that it doesn't matter anymore, or we can't say that we shouldn't dwell on things that were in the past.  Clearly we believe in dwelling on the past and even in recreating some of it.  

So we do need to address this issue.

We remember the bad things of the past so we can move forward and be better.   We’re good at remembering the past.  We could do a lot better at moving forward.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Agreed. I've got the essays on speed dial. Still doesn't stop people from trying to fill the void. Nature abhors a vaccuum. 

The essays also aren't a panacea. They aren't satisfactory for a lot of people (people who have read and thought about and discussed them). 

Discussion can still ensue, for example, along the lines of, "Okay, the Church disavows the explanations. But what is the explanation, then? Especially since the Church embraces the pre-existence as influencing everything else besides race?" The disavowal isn't convincing to many, or it seems like being tossed to and fro with winds of social change and presentism. And, most importantly, the essay doesn't shut the door on the ban itself being wrong. Which leads people back to wondering about the explanation, then. 

The Book of Abraham one gives some background information, but studiously takes no position. This leads to enquiring minds wanting to know what knowledgeable people they respect think --- it's unavoidable.

Polygamy --- it's still a "heiβes Theme" people want to discuss, regardless of the essay. The essay doesn't resolve it.

Just to give a few examples. 

---

As someone who has been asked to give firesides on gospel questions, and is still looked to for questions, I think this high-profile thing with Brother Wilcox illustrates a larger issue: in a church that increasingly is less specific and seeks non-controversy, many people look to trusted local people for discussion, Q&A, etc. I think spheres of influence, family, and the like continue to have a larger influence than general authorities/officers, because they are known by people and far more accessible than general authorities (and, they will speak their minds, and not give the controlled/correlated answers). Most people intuitively understand the boilerplate disclaimer "this isn't nailed down doctrine, the Church hasn't officially spoken," etc., but they want to know what these respected people think despite that. 

I wonder if his scheduled three-stake fireside in Long Beach, California on February 20 is still going to happen?  I hope so. Have we become such a weak, coddled, sheltered people that we can no longer hear or read people within the Church who's views we don't agree with? This is a far cry from Brigham Young's sentiment that

"If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it" (Journal of Discourses 14:204).

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

The essays also aren't a panacea. They aren't satisfactory for a lot of people (people who have read and thought about and discussed them). 

Discussion can still ensue, for example, along the lines of, "Okay, the Church disavows the explanations. But what is the explanation, then? Especially since the Church embraces the pre-existence as influencing everything else besides race?" The disavowal isn't convincing to many, or it seems like being tossed to and fro with winds of social change and presentism. And, most importantly, the essay doesn't shut the door on the ban itself being wrong. Which leads people back to wondering about the explanation, then. 

The Book of Abraham one gives some background information, but studiously takes no position. This leads to enquiring minds wanting to know what knowledgeable people they respect think --- it's unavoidable.

Polygamy --- it's still a "heiβes Theme" people want to discuss, regardless of the essay. The essay doesn't resolve it.

Just to give a few examples. 

---

As someone who has been asked to give firesides on gospel questions, and is still looked to for questions, I think this high-profile thing with Brother Wilcox illustrates a larger issue: in a church that increasingly is less specific and seeks non-controversy, many people look to trusted local people for discussion, Q&A, etc. I think spheres of influence, family, and the like continue to have a larger influence than general authorities/officers, because they are known by people and far more accessible than general authorities (and, they will speak their minds, and not give the controlled/correlated answers). Most people intuitively understand the boilerplate disclaimer "this isn't nailed down doctrine, the Church hasn't officially spoken," etc., but they want to know what these respected people think despite that. 

I wonder if his scheduled three-stake fireside in Long Beach, California on February 20 is still going to happen?  I hope so. Have we become such a weak, coddled, sheltered people that we can no longer hear or read people within the Church who's views we don't agree with? This is a far cry from Brigham Young's sentiment that

"If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it" (Journal of Discourses 14:204).

Even the women would be able to tell!  Strong language indeed.

I'm not quite getting your point though.  Are you saying that BY wanted the church to allow people to preach false doctrine in formal settings, because they would know it was false doctrine so it wouldn't matter?

There's a difference between hearing things we don't agree with, and having church officers preach them over the pulpit to the youth.

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The essays also aren't a panacea. They aren't satisfactory for a lot of people (people who have read and thought about and discussed them). 

Discussion can still ensue, for example, along the lines of, "Okay, the Church disavows the explanations. But what is the explanation, then? Especially since the Church embraces the pre-existence as influencing everything else besides race?" The disavowal isn't convincing to many, or it seems like being tossed to and fro with winds of social change and presentism. And, most importantly, the essay doesn't shut the door on the ban itself being wrong. Which leads people back to wondering about the explanation, then.

In the context of a Gospel Doctrine class, I don't think going much deeper than what the essays divulge would be advisable. At that point, I think it's the art of the instructor to manage those who are not satisfied without making it a free-for-all that would too often result in a distraction from the spirit. I can see myself saying something like "Good question. Maybe we can all think on this this week. I would welcome any private feedback sent to me on my email" or some such. And then it would be incumbent on the instructor to transition to the next point without giving offense. Art of the instructor indeed... ; )