Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[juliann]

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Until it gets removed

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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I went and listened to the part of the talk in which he discusses priesthood.  It’s not a new argument he makes.  He brings up the Levites and the Gentiles having to wait.  These are old points that have been made many times.  
 
It’s not what I would say, but I don’t see a need to make a huge fuss.  It just shows how easy it is to get attacked by the outrage mob these days.  

It was a rotten analogy when first used and is still now.  Being old does not make it no big deal, it makes it worse he is so out of touch he still thinks this is an appropriate answer.

There is a huge difference between withholding the priesthood from all but a few and giving the priesthood to all but a few (and actually it was giving it to all and then taking it back from a few).

 

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But I do think he was more trying to get on the youths' level. But it was more like a comedy act in his efforts.

He needs to stick to a written talk that has been gone over by someone who is not a good friend of his (so they aren’t reading into it what they think he means or being too gentle with him) if he is going to cover controversial issues and that person needs to be educated in them. I think he is sincere and trying to reach people, but public speaking on issues is not his strong suit.  Looks like he does well in subjects he knows.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I just gave a R.S. lesson on  his General Conference talk "Worthiness is not Flawlessness" which is a great. I also keep a copy of his talk on grace, again very good. So I come into this with a very positive attitude about Brother Wilcox. But ugh. It would help to have some lessons about learning to center blackness when speaking of race disparities instead of making everything white centered. These types of situations can be avoided with diversity training. It's really the only way to learn and to just say "ah well, don't be so sensitive" isn't going to help the Church or it's members help spread the Gospel and keep members. 

This…

I know we don’t have a professional leadership, but I do think our leaders could benefit greatly by some training in public speaking and addressing controversial issues. 

[Rain]

10 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I went through the elementary ed program at BYU with Brad a few centuries ago. I don’t think I have ever met a more kind, genuine person. He probably should not have used the terminology that he did but I can guarantee his heart was in the right place.

This talk surprised me.  I don't know him, but everything I've heard him talk about and read from him has been so different from this talk. When I first heard about this talk I had a hard time believing there was a real problem. I bet his heart is broken right now.

For others reading - I'm not excusing the things said. They are just so unlike him in my limited experience with him that I have to wonder what is going on.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

For sure. And the tone throughout when saying other faiths just play church. And so many other things sadly. Hopefully it's a wake up call for all. But I do think he was more trying to get on the youths' level. But it was more like a comedy act in his efforts. We do all make dumb moves though. And he was good enough to apologise.

It sounds like it was a definite misstep and probably a lesson that he needed to learn.

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, 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.

^^^^This.  Total train wreck and caught on video. This isn't going away for a long time.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

^^^^This.  Total train wreck and caught on video. This isn't going away for a long time.

I hope it creates a much needed conversation. We can't afford to keep these sorts of ideas even if we only trot them out occasionally. I was particularly disappointed with his attitude towards women's concerns, or, as he put it "girls." 

[Calm]

Morgan’s link is complete…

Pushing FSY over family reunions, that God wants them to be there…yeah, that would have made me so not want to go.

”We are going to talk a little about the gospel”…

Newspaper joke…took too far, a lighter touch…

The leaving the Church, I would like a few tweaks, but over all I am fine with it.  He uses “some leaving” so far, so not making global comments about those leaving…

Using GOSPEL as a memory device…I feel like that is middle school material and I wonder now if that is part of what led to his missteps…and he is trying to be funny about it being a “miracle” that the young adults will be able to tell parents what they learned…kind of insulting to the youth.

No one can complain he is trying to make the Church look mainstream or not emphasizing its uniqueness…”leaving everything”.  I could argue about that technically as if there are parts of the Gospel we can encounter elsewhere (and I would argue are done better at times elsewhere) then we aren’t necessarily leaving everything, but I also agree with him in an eternal sense since I believe God means us all to make the covenants we have within the Church eventually as part of our sanctification, preparation to receive his infinite blessings.  To possess all that God has as he has promised us, we need to receive and live the covenants that are unique to our faith.

Godhead:  he is doing modalism, used “being” correctly, but then said God/Jesus is a spirit.  That was painful.  First derogatory using “slash” and inaccurate as that ignores the one being, three persons.  My opinion, Latter-day Saints in general should just avoid trying to paraphrase the Trinity as understood by other Christians and just quote official commentary.  Yes, there are a lot of lay members who slip into modalist descriptions, but most faiths do not define God in those terms and if they aren’t great at teaching their own people, that is between them and their members, but we should not be making that error if we are choosing to critique them as he is.  We need to learn from being the target of so much misinformation out there not to do it to others.  And Joseph’s Vision does refute modalism, but not Trinitarian belief as they would agree three persons.  It could be said to refute the Father is a spirit only, but so far that is not what he is focused on.

The Joseph lied…why would he make up a lie that others wouldn’t believe is a good point, the delivery was awkward.

At the end he is using BYU students and “my printer broke”, he should have just gone straight to that…he just spends too much time on the point of people make lies that are believable.

And rejecting Joseph Smith doesn’t mean you have to reject everything he said.  It is not a logical argument, but I do think it is useful to ask them what are the concepts of God they still believe them and then ask why do they think they came to that belief…but avoid the idea they have to dump good beliefs they still hold if they are rejecting Joseph.  And again, he is misrepresenting Christian belief by saying Joseph taught the world to separate the Father and Jesus…it is in the Bible, it is not unique to our faith.

I don’t get putting a belief first in Joseph based on the Book of Mormon and then believing in any being that came to Joseph, that Joseph’s vision proves who Jesus is because Joseph is a prophet.  That seems backward to me.  The Book of Mormon is a Testament of Christ, not a Testament of Joseph.  Yes, it is evidence of Joseph’s calling as a prophet if one receives a witness of its truth and then Joseph’s teachings of the Father may be added to what the Book of Mormon teaches about Christ, but Joseph as a prophet first, then learning Jesus is God the Son, a separate being through teachings besides the Book of Mormon…I don’t see that as a necessary progression.

Not done yet…but saving..

‘Believing in Jesus because of Joseph’ is a much better way of saying it.  I can feel the depth of his passion and faith.  I love to hear that in his voice.  It moves me.  I think he does very well when focusing on his own beliefs of our covenantal relationship and what they mean to him.  He errs because he is disrespectful of others’ faith. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Rain said:

For others reading - I'm not excusing the things said. They are just so unlike him in my limited experience with him that I have to wonder what is going on.

My guess is he isn’t familiar with other faiths or the arguments and language around controversial issues.  He is not unique in his arguments, I have heard them before…but from those who have a superficial awareness of these topics.  Given his other talks, I think if he takes the time to catch up and not rely on what he likely learned in seminary and never questioned himself, he probably could give a good talk on these issues, but he needs someone to go over his missteps with him as this kind of stuff can be self reinforcing if shared between members who haven’t had much exposure to other faiths’ own works as well as critical arguments and sincere, faithful members’ difficulties with folklore and just heard the caricatures we have unfortunately passed around among ourselves.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Duncan]

This reminds me of the Randy Bott situation and the church having to make some remarks. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_L._Bott

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This reminds me of the Randy Bott situation and the church having to make some remarks. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_L._Bott

Yes, there are just several issues gathered in one spot.  He may have done us a big favor if we can have the discussion Juliann mentions as he covers several missteps members often make in one talk.  If he comes out later with better explanations and more accurate descriptions of criticisms and more helpful responses, what a great example that would be.

I don’t think he need to resigns.  An admission he still needs to learn even as a leader and he welcomes criticism so he can learn where he is weak…again, what a great example that would be.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This…

I know we don’t have a professional leadership, but I do think our leaders could benefit greatly by some training in public speaking and addressing controversial issues. 

Training would be fantastic.

However, Wilcox is a trained CES professional, right?

If the church provided better, more in-depth training on how to speak about controversial issues, they would likely have people like Brad Wilcox do the training.

Edited February 8, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Paloma]

11 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I went through the elementary ed program at BYU with Brad a few centuries ago. I don’t think I have ever met a more kind, genuine person. He probably should not have used the terminology that he did but I can guarantee his heart was in the right place.

Katherine, I hear you and I do believe he most likely is a kind and genuine person.

For all of you Latter-day Saint sisters and brothers in the faith ...

Here's where valuing people is so important ... and it's so easy to lose sight of when we're thinking about principles without considering the person.

I've just listened to this talk.  Imagine yourself listening to the talk while sitting beside me, your good friend who is a woman (and a married woman at that, having said my own wedding vows over 50 years ago when we still said "till death do us part" - we rarely do now); a Christian but not a member of your church; a pastor who ministers in a church different from your own - a pastor who has officiated at many weddings.  

Many of you would probably feel as deeply sad and uncomfortable as I feel when I hear your own church being disparaged and mocked - and your faith and authority being denied.  It hurts to hear that you have no authority when your own experience and conviction is otherwise.  (Debating this is not my point here, so I don't mean to get into that, especially when we know the positions we each hold. )

While my gut reaction is outrage, I know it's not right for me to take offense.  I can believe this is a good man, saying what he does in the way he does for the purpose of being an effective leader within his calling.

And as many of you have said, it's to his credit that he has apologized for those parts of his remarks that he's recognized as misspoken.

Just wanted to add my voice ... not for the purpose of complaining or persuading, but for human understanding.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Paloma

[Calm]

Only True Church:  Starting out being derogatory towards tolerance rather than focusing on the positive, again a misstep but an understandably easy one to make because he is talking about criticisms towards our faith.  He is being defensive though rather than defending.

And he is right about the Only True Church is shared (or at least should be shared) as an invitation…but that doesn’t mean the implication that others are lacking and therefore aren’t as good as we are isn’t included in every invitation and therefore it is a competition whether we want to see it that way or not.  We are competing for souls by inviting others to leave their current congregations and join ours even if we are saying “be sure to bring all that is good with you”.  That they are bringing a lot of luggage they learned in their former faith does not negate it becomes their former faith and they are now a member of our church and not the other one.  An invitation to come is an invitation to leave.

Ouch…chopsticks.

Spirit:  good that he is passionate defending spirit in other faiths as much as he is, now if he can be as strong in defending them against his own errors when he learns he has misrepresented them in that…

Knot in the balloon…not a bad analogy, except the knot prevents air being added as well

Spirit like a fire, awkward but that is me..

Furnace analogy, I like it…comfortable with the Spirit, let’s us get on with our lives, Like that a lot

But he can’t get away from the derogatory tone of those who leave…he needs to stay focused on the good stuff, he is great there.

Priesthood…already talked about playing church, going to skip what I already discussed, see here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74332-brad-wilcox-fireside-to-alpine-youth-on-feb-6/?do=findComment&comment=1210079910

The “nervous about his daughter playing sacrament”…kind of a nutshell case there, how would he have felt about his son doing the same, proud papa…why not be proud and not nervous his daughter is desiring to seek and serve God and others?

“Harder than it needs to be”…nope, they are not.  Dismissing others’ concerns as not that big of a deal is not dealing with those concerns, but reassuring oneself IMO.

Again…there is a big difference between everyone waiting together and a few having to wait by themselves.

”Girls”…how old is the group he is speaking to, high school or college?  If the former, there is still a lot of referencing such as “girls basketball” and “boys’ basketball” so my guess is it won’t run the wrong way as they hear it enough (unless I am really out of date, correct me if I am, please), but in college it is Men’s and Women’s, so if he is including the older group, he should be using “Women” and not “Girls” if he wants to be in tune, IMO.

Got to go eat breakfast and maybe will run some errands, but plan on finishing it.  I very much like the guy when he sticks with the positive, when he is speaking about his own experience.  He tries a bit too hard to be casual, it comes across as “loud” to me and I hated loud as a teen, but I would be interested to hear from the youth on their response, if it worked for them or turned them off as too much, too far.  And his dismissiveness of different faith positions…in group/out group behaviour.  He is not increasing understanding of others not only because he gets stuff wrong, but because he is disrespectful.  He seems like the kind of guy who will take the criticism and try to change though, rather than get overly defensive.  

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This reminds me of the Randy Bott situation and the church having to make some remarks. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_L._Bott

And a lot of good came out of that situation.  Hopefully good can come out of this one too.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I went and listened to the part of the talk in which he discusses priesthood.  It’s not a new argument he makes.  He brings up the Levites and the Gentiles having to wait.  These are old points that have been made many times.  
 
It’s not what I would say, but I don’t see a need to make a huge fuss.  It just shows how easy it is to get attacked by the outrage mob these days.  

Person 1: "It's such a shame that Black Americans had to ride in the back of the bus until the 1960's"

Person 2: "Perhaps what should focus on is the fact that White people couldn't ride in buses at all until they were invented in the late 1800's"

?????

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was a rotten analogy when first used and is still now.  Being old does not make it no big deal, it makes it worse he is so out of touch he still thinks this is an appropriate answer.

There is a huge difference between withholding the priesthood from all but a few and giving the priesthood to all but a few (and actually it was giving it to all and then taking it back from a few).

I agree. It’s a bad analogy. But I’m giving the guy some grace since the analogy is so innocuous.

 

 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Just wanted to add my voice ... not for the purpose of complaining or persuading, but for human understanding.

You keep impressing me.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Person 1: "It's such a shame that Black Americans had to ride in the back of the bus until the 1960's"

Person 2: "Perhaps what should focus on is the fact that White people couldn't ride in buses at all until they were invented in the late 1800's"

?????

It was a dumb way to handle the question. 

If you want to focus on timing and it being the Lord's ok (still not sure that's a great way to answer that kind of a question but I guess it's one of the options you can choose from), but for the love of all that is good, do not turn a question about blacks not receiving certain blessings for a long time into a focus on how white people also had to wait for something once.

That is top level cringe.  

When I first saw this clip it was only this small clip and I held out hope that he brought the subject back and saved it some, but he clearly just screwed up with this one.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Katherine, I hear you and I do believe he most likely is a kind and genuine person.

For all of you Latter-day Saint sisters and brothers in the faith ...

Here's where valuing people is so important ... and it's so easy to lose sight of when we're thinking about principles without considering the person.

I've just listened to this talk.  Imagine yourself listening to the talk while sitting beside me, your good friend who is a woman (and a married woman at that, having said my own wedding vows over 50 years ago when we still said "till death do us part" - we rarely do now); a Christian but not a member of your church; a pastor who ministers in a church different from your own - a pastor who has officiated at many weddings.  

Many of you would probably feel as deeply sad and uncomfortable as I feel when I hear your own church being disparaged and mocked - and your faith and authority being denied.  It hurts to hear that you have no authority when your own experience and conviction is otherwise.  (Debating this is not my point here, so I don't mean to get into that, especially when we know the positions we each hold. )

While my gut reaction is outrage, I know it's not right for me to take offense.  I can believe this is a good man, saying what he does in the way he does for the purpose of being an effective leader within his calling.

And as many of you have said, it's to his credit that he has apologized for those parts of his remarks that he's recognized as misspoken.

Just wanted to add my voice ... not for the purpose of complaining or persuading, but for human understanding.

It's a perfect voice that needs to be heard.

We've got to get better at presenting our beliefs in ways that don't cause hurt.  Disagreement, even strong disagreement, is inevitable but I don't think that hurt is.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I agree. It’s a bad analogy. But I’m giving the guy some grace since the analogy is so innocuous.

 

 

But because it is so innocuous, there are a lot of well made and faithful criticisms out there about it.  That he repeats it signals to me he hasn’t made an effort to look at criticism in any depth.

Having said that, I know an educated and informed man who still uses this as his go to explanation even after being challenged on it and given detailed explanations of why it doesn’t work by other Saints.  He seems to have a blind spot on why it is problematic, so it isn’t automatic that it means uninformed and I probably shouldn’t make that assumption.  People can get locked into ideas and not be able to question or even see their own assumptions.  No doubt I have my own blind spots.  That doesn’t excuse its use, just saying I probably shouldn’t be making assumptions this is inexperience with actually dealing with criticism vs stuck in the mud commentary. And maybe it is even something else.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[Paloma]

Thank you, Calm and Bluebell for your replies.

And to others of you expressing support. 

While I'm not looking for commendation, I value it ... and I know it's there!

You know that saying you have - something about "Man (and surely woman!!) is that one may have joy".

I feel that on this board when we, being different, can have definite and heartfelt connection.

[Navidad]

Listening to this leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk, I felt I was a child again listening to a hardshell Fundamentalist preacher spew his venom at everyone who wasn't him, didn't believe just like him, and who would dare question anything he said or belief he held. I understand he has apologized to blacks for his comments. Is he going to apologize to every other non-LDS Christian in the world for mocking them and deeming that they are just playing church?

Of course the Protestant pastor charged the lady for changing her vows he said with a sneer. That is when he lost me. I have married too many couples to hear my faithful service so horribly maligned. And you all complain about the Fundamentalist nobodies on the corner at Temple Square! You have every right to complain, but here was one of your leaders (please don't tell me he isn't a general authority - He is a member of the presidency of a church-wide organization that is held in the highest esteem) mocking the rest of the Christian world.

I had the feeling you get in your throat when you feel like you are going to throw up but you don't. Know what I mean? Do you have any idea how this talk will hurt the LDS church throughout the non-LDS Christian world? I don't want to cancel him . . . he has cancelled himself. That was the most hurtful talk I have ever heard from an ordained person of any faith in my life. Do any of you think he will be disciplined by someone in the church with greater authority? Just this morning I wrote on another thread about how when doctrine leads to dogma and duty it usually causes damage. I said that in the context of any faith group. Little did I know I would see it play out the very same day. I am so sorry to have heard this. It angers me, but more importantly it breaks my heart. Someone quoted on his Facebook page this Maya Angelou quote - "I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” May God grant me the grace to do all three.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Navidad

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, 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

This talk is soooo bad. Every line is cringeworthy. Like you said, a simple apology about one small aspect doesn't change the fact that the inarticulate words are based on hurtful beliefs. I hear him apologizing for the words, not the beliefs.

Sadly, even though I think many recognize the cringeworthiness of this when they hear it, I think that within the church there are so many people who agree with the sentiments. Maybe they wish it had been said more tactfully, but they agree with what he is teaching. That is the real problem.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Listening to this leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk, I felt I was a child again listening to a hardshell Fundamentalist preacher spew his venom at everyone who wasn't him, didn't believe just like him, and who would dare question anything he said or belief he held. I understand he has apologized to blacks for his comments. Is he going to apologize to every other non-LDS Christian in the world for mocking them and deeming that they are just playing church?

Of course the Protestant pastor charged the lady for changing her vows he said with a sneer. That is when he lost me. I have married too many couples to hear my faithful service so horribly maligned. And you all complain about the Fundamentalist nobodies on the corner at Temple Square! You have every right to complain, but here was one of your leaders (please don't tell me he isn't a general authority - He is a member of the presidency of a church-wide organization that is held in the highest esteem) mocking the rest of the Christian world.

I had the feeling you get in your throat when you feel like you are going to throw up but you don't. Know what I mean? Do you have any idea how this talk will hurt the LDS church throughout the non-LDS Christian world? I don't want to cancel him . . . he has cancelled himself. That was the most hurtful talk I have ever heard from an ordained person of any faith in my life. Do any of you think he will be disciplined by someone in the church with greater authority? Just this morning I wrote on another thread about how when doctrine leads to dogma and duty it usually causes damage. I said that in the context of any faith group. Little did I know I would see it play out the very same day. I am so sorry to have heard this. It angers me, but more importantly it breaks my heart. Someone quoted on his Facebook page this Maya Angelou quote - "I’ve leaned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” May God grant me the grace to do all three.

Fortunately, most of the non-LDS Christian world ignores what the LDS church says.

He won't be disciplined. He said what has been taught for decades, he just didn't get the message about what the PR effects of saying it out loud might be. Frankly, I think it's a very good thing that there is so much uproar within the LDS church about this talk. It means that many members, even very faithful members, aren't willing to put up with this kind of ideology. And outside the LDS faith, no one cares about Wilcox or what he says.