Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We all have our own way of processing this kind of thing, and I'm not saying that your way isn't valid.  But I do want to point out that your opinion how the church must react if it's serious about racism is not universal.  The president of BYU's Black student Union, Nate Byrd, has said that he doesn't believe that Bro. Wilcox needs to resign or be fired, for example.  I'm guessing that you would not accuse him of not taking racism seriously just because he has come to a different conclusion about how best to handle this than you have.

Setting up a "if you believe what I believe you'll react exactly how I would react" standard is often problematic and unhelpful.

Wow, that is excellent! I may have to steal . . . err . . . borrow that!

Edited February 10, 2022 by Navidad

[Nacho2dope]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was this ever a question in this thread?  I am wondering why you brought it up…just as an aside or because of something said or not said?

No, I am sorry this was not brought up in the thread. Just something I was thinking out loud. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The reality is that men do not need women, in this life, to use their priesthood but women do need men, in this life, to use "theirs" (the quotes are because women are not ordained and men are, so there is a difference to that word that should be acknowledged). 

That men and women cannot be exalted without each other does not negate or change the first statement.

I'm not sure on the bishop stuff.  I know that it's policy that bishops be married, but I don't know that it's an absolute.  For example, if all that were available were single men and there was no likelihood of a married man showing up anytime in the future, perhaps a single man could be called. 

However, if only women were available, I don't believe a woman could be called as a bishop.

Priesthood is about power and the exercise of power.  And not just here on Earth.  Since we already know how the exceptions prove the rule, we also realize that the strictures in place right now are not necessarily absolute.  Indeed, are certainly not absolute.  How else could Joseph allow the Relief Society powers it no longer exercises?  How else could we have female prophets in the Bible?  How else could God call a female judge-warlord?  Current practice does not necessarily hem us in.  At least not absolutely.  God and the Brethren make decisions, and one never knows where that will lead us.  The one constant we can be sure of is change.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We all have our own way of processing this kind of thing, and I'm not saying that your way isn't valid.  But I do want to point out that your opinion how the church must react if it's serious about racism is not universal.  The president of BYU's Black student Union, Nate Byrd, has said that he doesn't believe that Bro. Wilcox needs to resign or be fired, for example.  I'm guessing that you would not accuse him of not taking racism seriously just because he has come to a different conclusion about how best to handle this than you have.

Setting up a "if you believe what I believe you'll react exactly how I would react" standard is often problematic and unhelpful.

I agree.

However, I think many people jump to the "release and fire" consequence because it seems a strong and clear message about the inappropriateness of the talk needs to be sent so that the church isn't seen condoning the things that were taught. In what other way might the church send a clear message to refute the racism, sexism and general rudeness and exceptionalist attitude about LDS-Christianity?  I suppose the highest church leaders could come out and make a very clear statement, referencing the talk and talking about how and why it doesn't represent church teachings, but for some reason that seems less likely. At least to me, it seems more probable the church would release/fire wilcox and stay basically quiet about the content and hope that it blows over.

IMO the church should do something to send a strong message. The fire/release option just seems easiest and most likely to me.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

No, I am sorry this was not brought up in the thread. Just something I was thinking out loud. 

No problem, I post my rambles all the time. Just wanted to make sure I hadn’t missed something. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

However, I think many people jump to the "release and fire" consequence because it seems a strong and clear message about the inappropriateness of the talk needs to be sent so that the church isn't seen condoning the things that were taught. In what other way might the church send a clear message to refute the racism, sexism and general rudeness and exceptionalist attitude about LDS-Christianity?  I suppose the highest church leaders could come out and make a very clear statement, referencing the talk and talking about how and why it doesn't represent church teachings, but for some reason that seems less likely. At least to me, it seems more probable the church would release/fire wilcox and stay basically quiet about the content and hope that it blows over.

IMO the church should do something to send a strong message. The fire/release option just seems easiest and most likely to me.

And maybe it will go that route.  It's still early in all of this.

But I think our leaders are likely to take into consideration what is useful to Bro. Wilcox as well as what is useful to the institution (after all, we are the religion with a prophet that once said "never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved").  And trying to balance Bro. Wilcox's needs with the needs of the membership of the church, might produce a different result than some of us want (or foresee). 

[the narrator]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A man cannot be a bishop without a wife, and this applies as well to other LDS leaders.

Hmm. I don't recall being married as a deacons' or teachers' quorum president.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

Hmm. I don't recall being married as a deacons' or teachers' quorum president.

You missed out.

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You missed out.

I was awkward around girls as a teen. That probably explains it.

[Rain]

 

4 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

 15 pages of discussion here, and countless comments elsewhere about what almost everyone agrees are tone deaf and often derisive comments about "the blacks," "stupid" critics, shrill "girls," and other Christians "playing church," from a leader in the church, and the real problem for you was that a few people failed to note a distinction in rank that you think is sacred, but doesn't change or address any of the above problems in his talk and possibly church culture and society that led to them. I've been in the church for decades, granted that isn't as long as many on this board, but I've still never seen anyone obsessed with rank like you are (to the point that you lob "less than impress[ive]" personal insults when I explain why its meaningless in addressing any of the above problems.)

I marvel at someone who can look an outrageous talk in the face, which substantively attacks several groups of people and then complain that he is the victim, even as he shows more regard for the rank of GAs than the groups actually being attacked. Maybe you could think and behave like doing unto the "least of these" is sacred as well. Show some umbrage for fellow Christians that try to live a godly life and get told they are pretending. Care about ministering with good, personalized answers to black people who wonder about comparatively recent church policy that excluded them and the feelings that they still aren't fully heard or understood by the dominant culture. I don't think any of the above is outrageous, and they certainly aren't less important than pettifogging rank. 

But nope, you care about rank. Your point is noted. Thank you for the clarification. For the 4th time just in this post and the 20th time on this thread, it still doesn't address any of the meaningful issues at hand. 

Not speaking for Scott as our thinking is very different, but from observation over the years I think you are not seeing him correctly.

I don't think he is concerned about rank here.  He is concerned about language, definitions and being precise.  He feels we need to use correct terms and language to communicate more clearly. I think he may have a difficult time getting into the meat of the discussion while there is the possibility that misunderstandings of terms and language can make things more confusing. 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

I have seen everything from Brad did nothing wrong to he needs to be fired. What do you feel should be done to help those that were offended? His apology did not seem to be accepted by most.

The offended people in his actual audience? Or people involved in the online discussion about it? 

I don't think anything should be done, personally. Time will tell if there is a de facto clipping of his wings or not (ranging from release and condemnation to not being sent to stake conferences or other speaking assignments). We'll know what the Brethren think about it through what is or isn't done about it. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Hmm. I don't recall being married as a deacons' or teachers' quorum president.

We weren't talking about the lesser priesthood.  I meant bishop and above.  Once again, however, it is precisely the exceptions which prove the rule.  Some want to minimize the importance of women, while others point out that they are of central importance.  If Joseph could make exceptions for the Relief Society, and if women can be prophets and warlords in the Bible (which they have been), then we will want to explore their importance elsewhere -- including the Celestial realm.  We need to stop creating false absolutes.

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We all have our own way of processing this kind of thing, and I'm not saying that your way isn't valid.  But I do want to point out that your opinion how the church must react if it's serious about racism is not universal.  The president of BYU's Black student Union, Nate Byrd, has said that he doesn't believe that Bro. Wilcox needs to resign or be fired, for example.  I'm guessing that you would not accuse him of not taking racism seriously just because he has come to a different conclusion about how best to handle this than you have.

Setting up a "if you believe what I believe you'll react exactly how I would react" standard is often problematic and unhelpful.

Ok.  What would you suggest since the poster asked us what we thought should happen? 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If that were to happen I think the only thing we can read into it is that the church approves of the work he is doing in his calling and wants him to continue.

It's hard to imagine that happening. At the very least I suspect Wilcox will fade into the background and not continue these speaking engagements.

I've witnessed other leaders (locally) do things (like an indictment for tax evasion) that one would suspect the church would want to distance from the church, yet that bishop continued serving. The only thing I could read into it was that the indictment wasn't a big deal to the church and they wanted him to continue functioning in his calling.

I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that he is scheduled to speak in Edmonton, Alberta this Sunday, and Long Beach, California on the 20th. It would be interesting to know if a) he is scheduled to speak in the near future, b) if he speaks on grace or uses this G-O-S-P-E-L talk, and c) if so, if he applies the online criticism to it (I would assume that the answer is yes. I think he has learned, loud and clear, this time around). 

That's a pretty full speaking schedule for a BYU professor. When we had Daniel Peterson speak to our stake, a donor (my 1st counselor) paid for his airfare, and he stayed with friends (my 1st counselor's family). It was not the sort of thing he could have done out of his own pocket, especially weekend after weekend. And, speakers like this aren't paid or remunerated. 

It was neat to have Dr. Peterson talk and answer questions in a combined 3rd hour the next Sunday in our ward, too.  

---

I don't think the reaction "in the pews" has been the same as it has been online. I can imagine some being influenced after the fact by the online chatter and media coverage. Is anyone aware of furious people who were there who have chimed in?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Priesthood is about power and the exercise of power.

If priesthood is about anything, it is about service and the privilege of serving. Methinks that nothing truly Christ-like is about power!

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that he is scheduled to speak in Edmonton, Alberta this Sunday, and Long Beach, California on the 20th. It would be interesting to know if a) he is scheduled to speak in the near future, b) if he speaks on grace or uses this G-O-S-P-E-L talk, and c) if so, if he applies the online criticism to it (I would assume that the answer is yes. I think he has learned, loud and clear, this time around). 

That's a pretty full speaking schedule for a BYU professor. When we had Daniel Peterson speak to our stake, a donor (my 1st counselor) paid for his airfare, and he stayed with friends (my 1st counselor's family). It was not the sort of thing he could have done out of his own pocket, especially weekend after weekend. And, speakers like this aren't paid or remunerated. 

It was neat to have Dr. Peterson talk and answer questions in a combined 3rd hour the next Sunday in our ward, too.  

---

I don't think the reaction "in the pews" has been the same as it has been online. I can imagine some being influenced after the fact by the online chatter and media coverage. Is anyone aware of furious people who were there who have chimed in?

Edmonton would be an interesting place for him to speak, it's very conservative there, not as bad as Calgary but there are liberal members there as well, so it'll be interesting to see how that all goes down. 

[James 1 5]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If priesthood is about anything, it is about service and the privilege of serving. Methinks that nothing truly Christ-like is about power!

Power is 

1. the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.

2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

If the Church is serious about eliminating racism in the Church, he needs to be released and fired from BYU.  It's the only way to send the message that the Church is serious about racism.  If the Church is only sorta serious about eliminating racism, less serious actions will be taken.  If the Church doesn't really care about eliminating racism in the Church, it will do nothing more than maybe a public statement condemning what was said and then encourage members to be forgiving because Brad has done so much good or he made a mistake and has repented.

Having an opinion and being wrong on that opinion is not an offense one should be fired from.   I suppose you have have opinions on issues that might offend someone out there. Would that be a cause to fire you?

Edited February 10, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Rivers]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Having an opinion and being wrong on that opinion is not an offense one should be fired from.   I suppose you have have opinions on issues that might offend someone out there. Would that be a cause to fire you?

If everyone got fired for having an opinion that offended someone, nobody would have a job.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

not as bad as Calgary

Don’t you go bad mouthing Calgary!  

Edited February 10, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

And maybe it will go that route.  It's still early in all of this.

But I think our leaders are likely to take into consideration what is useful to Bro. Wilcox as well as what is useful to the institution (after all, we are the religion with a prophet that once said "never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved").  And trying to balance Bro. Wilcox's needs with the needs of the membership of the church, might produce a different result than some of us want (or foresee). 

How does this consideration come down when someone say, breaks the law of chastity their senior year at BYU?

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Ok.  What would you suggest since the poster asked us what we thought should happen? 

I have no suggestions.  I really have no idea what would be best in this situation.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If priesthood is about anything, it is about service and the privilege of serving. Methinks that nothing truly Christ-like is about power!

We believe that the priesthood is the authority to act in God's name, so I think that's why Robert was talking about power-meaning, God's power.

[Craig Speechly]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:15 PM, kimpearson said:

This just came across my Facebook feed.  Can anyone give me some more insight?  This clip seems very embarrassing when the Church is making statement against racism.  Do you think the youth are swayed by this?

What about the second one one?

And the rest of the clips show a talk going on in the same manner.  Do you think this is the message our Church leaders want going out?

While these sentiments expressed poorly by Brad Wilcox seem ill sorted for the 21st century...these and views similar to these were part and parcel to the things I was taught as a youth in the church back when the Church was proud to be Mormon circa 1960's and 70's.  I wonder why they haven't stood the passage of time.*

*tongue planted firmly in cheek

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How does this consideration come down when someone say, breaks the law of chastity their senior year at BYU?

I have no idea.  I don't believe this is a situation where there should be a loss of religious privileges (no bishop's endorsement withdrawn or loss of a temple recommend), so I don't know how to compare the two examples.  BYU's honor code spells out specific consequences of specific actions but I don't know that professors are under anything similar.   

Plus, I wouldn't know how to compare the bureaucracy of BYU, and especially the way that it police's it's honor code, with how the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 might handle someone in Wilcox's situation.