Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

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... ; )

I agree (it accidentally quoted me when you were trying to quote Rongo for some reason).  I think that church classroom situations are the perfect chance to practice the lost art of saying "I don't know".  Our egos like us to provide answers when people ask us questions so we can look knowledgeable, but sometimes we need to tell our ego to just be quiet.

[JAHS]

1 hour 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. 

If you live in Utah I can imagine this might happen. Here in California no one will say anything about it or might not even know it happened.

[Calm]

I assume this is a summary of Wilcox’s gathering of Israel talk:

https://universe.byu.edu/2019/08/22/education-week-brad-wilcox-discuses-the-role-of-church-members-in-the-gathering-of-israel/

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Especially since the Church embraces the pre-existence as influencing everything else besides race?"

But it doesn’t define how it influences in general.  While some of the noble ones may be set apart to be born in the church in anticipation of them becoming leaders of the church, it is possible the majority are born in the church because God knew that was the only way we would come to him. Others didn’t need the head start we did. 

And there is no reason to assume that hard circumstances are a punishment rather than a recognition by God they are made of strong stuff. And those born in the US around the 20th century needed to be coddled with freedom, wealth, etc because we would have spiritually wilted under the conditions much of the rest of humanity endures.

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.”

Ummmmm....

Quote

Weaver III acknowledged previous written apologies from Wilcox but said those apologies have fallen short so far.

 

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

This hasn't come out before because many members of the Church believe or accept explanations like Brad Wilcox gives because it makes them feel safe in the Church.  It fits in their world view and these ideas  sustain their belief system.  Just read the comments again on this thread.  There are many that really just say forget it and forgive.  The last two years in the United States has brought certain issues to the very front of everyone's attention.  Watching a black man being killed slowly by police officers in the name of law and the ensuing discussion has caused many to really look at their own beliefs about blacks.  These folks were unaware of their own racist views until that event.  It is no surprise to me that nobody said anything until now.  It was only recently that Church leadership publicly condemned racism in a very strong manner.  I am willing to bet that if this video would have surface two or three years ago many more would have defended Brad Wilcox including some in this discussion.  In my opinion, you can thank George Floyd and Black Lives Matter for the sudden response and condemnation of Brad Wilcox.  That is why Brad is only apologizing for his comments on the priesthood and nothing else.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, kimpearson said:

That is why Brad is only apologizing for his comments on the priesthood and nothing else.

Since he has apparently apologized before quite a few times, I don’t think you can make that assumption.  
 

Now if this time he does more than just apologizes…

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Since someone asked, here are Debi Wilcox’s Facebook comments:

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. 

Thank you for providing the quote. 

[Ginger Snaps]

I get the urge for her to defend her husband, but Debi Wilcox just made this a whole lot worse.  Her comments really make Brad Wilcox’s apology seem less sincere. . . like he’s saying what he thinks people want to hear, but this is what he and his wife are really think and are telling each other in the privacy of their home. 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I get the urge for her to defend her husband, but Debi Wilcox just made this a whole lot worse.  Her comments really make Brad Wilcox’s apology seem less sincere. . . like he’s saying what he thinks people want to hear, but this is what he and his wife are really think and are telling each other in the privacy of their home. 

I had the same response. 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would probably do the church some good to make a statement, sooner rather than later, but this only happened a couple of days ago. I saw Bednar had made some kind of statement but it didn't seem to specifically address this uproar.

It makes sense that they would move cautiously. I'm trying to think of other recent examples, but does the church usually come out directly to denounce a talk or comments, or behavior, or is that more likely to be handled with the individual instead of in public.

I included Bodnar due to comments I have heard him make at training I have attended with him regarding women and the priesthood.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

 

I have a brother who was a drug addict and alcoholic.  He had a lot of problems, but he was a sweet man that would literally take the shirt off his back to help others. There are many good things I could share about him.

Unfortunately, when he was about 18, he and his friend stole a car, drove it to another state, got on some kind of high speed chase and ended up in the yard of someone.  There was damage to the car and to the yard or maybe even the house.

I was really concerned for my brother. I wanted to help him in any way I could, but I also understood his actions caused damage for the car and house owners.  I would not have blamed them for being angry, nor would I have blamed their friends being angry for them as they "mourned" with them.

So I did what I could do help my brother, but I recognized there was consequences from his actions, some of which was anger at him. He had to learn to deal with those and oh there were many.

I told on here that I was surprised.  I have worried about Brad because if he believes what he has said about the atonement then I feel there is a great burden on him.

But there are consequences to his actions as well.  Things he said have hurt people.  They are going to feel some anger just like the car and house owner might have felt.  He is going to have to learn to deal with those consequences and the cool thing is that the atonement may become much deeper in his heart than before if he will let it.

But it's ok that people are feeling shock and anger.  Consequences almost always affect other people.  Let people mourn.  When they are ready people will forgive and that's not the same time table for everyone.  

 

 

Thanks for these insightful comments. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sister Martha from your high school Latin class needs to smack you on the knuckles with her ruler.

Actually, it was Father N. and he preferred calling poor students up in front of the class and literally kicking them in the butt!  (Not kidding!)

Ah, the good old days !

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. Some have said, “Wait until this hits TikTok so the kids can see….” It’s the new reality.
 

 

And I thought omniscience was reserved for Santa Claus!

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Since he has apparently apologized before quite a few times, I don’t think you can make that assumption.  
 

Now if this time he does more than just apologizes…

I don’t think He needs to do more.    Given all the exposure the has gotten the past few days, I think he has learned a valuable lesson.  None of use would enjoy public shaming.  Some people would like to keep kicking a man who is down.  I don’t see a need.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours 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.

Good question. Like many of us old fogies, he may be out of touch with the youth, not understanding how things have changed, what concerns they have, how they communicate. I struggle even after having taught school for many years and having 20 grandkids to teach me. 
 

“Kids!
I don't know what's wrong with these kids today!
Kids!
Who can understand anything they say?
Kids!
They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs!
Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy, loafers!
While we're on the subject:
Kids!
You can talk and talk till your face is blue!
Kids!
But they still just do what they want to do!
Why can't they be like we were
Perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?

Kids!
I've tried to raise him the best I could
Kids! Kids!
Laughing, singing, dancing, grinning, morons!
And while we're on the subject!
Kids! They are just impossible to control!
Kids! With their awful clothes and their rock an' roll!
Why can't they dance like we did
What's wrong with Sammy Kaye?
What's the matter with kids today?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Actually, it was Father N. and he preferred calling poor students up in front of the class and literally kicking them in the butt!  (Not kidding!)

Ah, the good old days !

Indeed. Mr Grosnik (eighth grade geography) would come up behind you, kick the chair out from under you, grab you by the belt and collar and throw you out the door into the hall…….once. One day he drew a small circle on the blackboard and made me stand with my nose in the circle after I made a wisecrack in his class. If he caught you chewing gum, he made you wear it on your nose. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don’t think He needs to do more.    Given all the exposure the has gotten the past few days, I think he has learned a valuable lesson.  None of use would enjoy public shaming.  Some people would like to keep kicking a man who is down.  I don’t see a need.  

I don’t assume someone has learned a lesson just because they experienced pain. Know too many that just dig in deeper even if they withdraw from vulnerable positions.  I can think of a few times I dug in deeper when I probably shouldn’t have. 

I have seen others who have changed. I have changed myself when subjected to an intense and embarrassing correction.  Hoping he will. But since past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour, I am going to not assume he will in this case given his long history of giving these kinds of talks and teaching in his class even while receiving blowback and making apologies without significant change apparently.  I will believe he will change when I see he has (at least in mortality, I am assuming in the next life when he is better able to comprehend how he has been disrespectful of others in damaging ways, he will eagerly change as I hope I do when confronted by my errors).  He is said to be very kind, so I suspect if he can recognize he is being disrespectful and not just joking around or whatever he thinks he is doing, he will change.  But one has to be very secure in one’s views to repeat them over and over at the pulpit imo.

I don’t believe in kicking people at all, but acting like nothing is wrong because one doesn’t want to cause unnecessary pain is probably one of the reasons he has managed to teach these false ideas and be so disrespectful over the pulpit for apparently 20 years. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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.

 

I only listened to a portion of Brad Wilcox’s talk, and only one time. But my recollection is that he spoke the above point in the context of temple ordinances, saying that women need no priesthood ordination to administer the ordinances of the temple. However, when I was called as a temple ordinance worker, I was ordained by a member of the temple presidency. Had that not happened, I could not administer the temple ordinances, even though I hold the priesthood. I don’t know what the procedure is for female temple ordinance workers (I suppose I should ask someone). But isn’t an ordination required for them as well? 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I only listened to a portion of Brad Wilcox’s talk, and only one time. But my recollection is that he spoke the above point in the context of temple ordinances, saying that women need no priesthood ordination to administer the ordinances of the temple. However, when I was called as a temple ordinance worker, I was ordained by a member of the temple presidency. Had that not happened, I could not administer the temple ordinances, even though I hold the priesthood. I don’t know what the procedure is for female temple ordinance workers (I suppose I should ask someone). But isn’t an ordination required for them as well? 

I don't think they call it being "ordained" , but they are given priesthood power and authority and set apart to perform the temple ordinances.

[Peacefully]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t assume someone has learned a lesson just because they experienced pain. Know too many that just dig in deeper even if they withdraw from vulnerable positions.  I can think of a few times I dug in deeper when I probably shouldn’t have. 

I have seen others who have changed. I have changed myself when subjected to an intense and embarrassing correction.  Hoping he will. But since past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour, I am going to not assume he will in this case given his long history of giving these kinds of talks and teaching in his class even while receiving blowback and making apologies without significant change apparently.  I will believe he will change when I see he has (at least in mortality, I am assuming in the next life when he is better able to comprehend how he has been disrespectful of others in damaging ways, he will eagerly change as I hope I do when confronted by my errors).  He is said to be very kind, so I suspect if he can recognize he is being disrespectful and not just joking around or whatever he thinks he is doing, he will change.  But one has to be very secure in one’s views to repeat them over and over at the pulpit imo.

I don’t believe in kicking people at all, but acting like nothing is wrong because one doesn’t want to cause unnecessary pain is probably one of the reasons he has managed to teach these false ideas and be so disrespectful over the pulpit for apparently 20 years. 

I had a home teacher once who was a very sweet man with the biggest smile, but he would also get up at the pulpit and call the Catholic Church the Great Satan and the Whore of Babylon. He said it with such conviction that I assumed he must have known what he was talking about. I was younger then and a new convert, and I tended to believe whatever the “pillars” of the congregation said. I am so ashamed of some of the things I let go unquestioned back then. So a person can be the salt of the earth and still lead people down the wrong path. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. Mr Grosnik would come up behind you, kick the chair out from under you, grab you by the belt and collar and throw you out the door into the hall…….once. One day he drew a small circle on the blackboard and made me stand with my nose in the circle after I made a wisecrack in his class. 

Don’t give Nemesis ideas. 

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suspected this might be a set piece for Bro Wilcox. Looks like he’s being cancelled. I wonder why this has just now become an issue. Who recorded and posted this?

There was a fellow in our ward who had been a very good violinist, but advancing years had taken an embarrassing toll on his playing. I asked Sister Gui to let me know when that happened to me so I could hang up the fiddle with some dignity left. That time has now come and she has reminded me that it would be better to sit back in the violin section and not stand out in front playing the concerto. 

An 18 year old talk may not serve any more.

 

I think the talk has just now become an issue because it became available to the outside world (non-members).  He has given this taught many many times to members, and apparently it didn't seem to bother anyone.  This doesn't reflect well on church culture.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

apparently it didn't seem to bother anyone. 

If he has been giving out apologies, it has been bothering people.

For some reason, not the ones who hand out callings or hire/fire BYU profs though..at least not enough for change to happen.

Given there has already been a public statement, my guess is there will need to be tangible evidence he is not just saying ‘sorry you are offended’ or there will be something with more teeth from BYU.

Could be another Paul Dunn situation though, but lies are easier to document/prove than disrespect vs just joking around and went too far.

The ideal for me would be his public and sincere moment of enlightenment or recognition of what he was actually doing and then becoming the kind of teacher we need, which would include him using himself as an example of where one can go wrong and the correct path.  That would be healing and powerful, IMO, and the kind of example we need.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If he has been giving out apologies, it has been bothering people.

I was unaware he apologized before this week.