Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  Quite a few second hand statements.  Do you doubt those who said it?

Do I doubt those who repeated what they heard? I'm sure they believed it. Are you familiar with current scholarly standards? Passed down stories, decades away from the event are no longer automatically considered reliable when there are no contemporary primary sources. I'd put this in the same category as the seagull and crickets stories that we no longer hear much about for the same reasons. I can see how this particular story would spread considering the long term need of justifying polygamy.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not aiming this directly at @mfbukowski but behavior in general from some members of the church. 

It's been a really stressful vacation week with my very faithful LDS in-laws spent in Vegas. One of my BIL's actions were hard to take, especially since he's a current bishop.

 

 

 What is your point? If we hadn't all encountered racist behavior we wouldn't have a racism problem. Why in the world do you think we need to hear ugly details about your jerk relatives? What if we all turned this board into a cesspool by doing that? What's next? The time your uncle said the N word? 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No it did not.

Perhaps you forgot saying: "Then your prophets and apostles are liars and are essentially useless. If they did not have discernment and God's guidance on such an important doctrine then they cannot be trusted on anything else. "

Only the false assumption by you of infallibility could justify such a statement.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do I doubt those who repeated what they heard? I'm sure they believed it. Are you familiar with current scholarly standards? Passed down stories, decades away from the event are no longer automatically considered reliable when there are no contemporary primary sources. I'd put this in the same category as the seagull and crickets stories that we no longer hear much about for the same reasons. I can see how this particular story would spread considering the long term need of justifying polygamy.

I thought it was in the polygamy essay.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

 What is your point? If we hadn't all encountered racist behavior we wouldn't have a racism problem. Why in the world do you think we need to hear ugly details about your jerk relatives? What if we all turned this board into a cesspool by doing that? What's next? The time your uncle said the N word? 

Just hoping to lessen tacky behavior.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Actually, JS never claimed that. It comes from second hand stories. Just to be accurate. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought it was in the polygamy essay.

It is:

Quote

When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.9

Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents.10 Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. After the marriage with Alger ended in separation, Joseph seems to have set the subject of plural marriage aside until after the Church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
 

Whether it should be….at least without stating they are secondhand and late sources and we have nothing from Joseph himself…

Edited February 13, 2022 by Calm

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
 

Whether it should be….

I think the same need to justify polygamy is in play, thus, this story will continue to be repeated without clarification.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not drawing any conclusions from this, just double checking my info…

Joseph had visits from angels to instruct him on a number of occasions throughout his life that we are aware of, I believe..  Correct? Yes

He was also allowing, if not directly participating in giving the priesthood or allowing men to act in their priesthood roles to blacks during his lifetime, correct? From the accounts we have, yes.

Did Brigham Young ever speak of getting instruction from God by having an angel visit him?  My memory is he didn’t, he had first Joseph instructing him and visions as well, but I don’t remember angels being involved in his revelatory experience. I haven’t studied him much though, so perhaps some one can tell me if I am right or not. From what I could find on a cursory search, it seems more on the lines if visions and dreams more so than angelic visitations. But It wasn’t super thorough 

It is Brigham Young who instituted the Ban after some experience of allowing black men to function in priesthood roles, correct? Yes. It was first documented  in 1852. There’s no solid official declaration. That’s just the point where it seems to have begun as some for of official policy. 

Later prophets I am very unfamiliar with.  I am aware of some visions, but were there any that spoke of angels coming to speak with them?  
I run into the same problem as you on this.

Just curious if there was a different process of learning for Joseph than the other prophets.  Not saying that even if they are different, that means God is not just as capable of delivering a clear message of what needs to be done without an angel as with.  Just wondering if it was more God instructing Joseph in the way he expected to be instructed that resulted in an angel delivering the message.

Also more a guess, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was at least a little. No matter if any of them saw angels, it seemed the JS had at least more documented accounts of angelic visitations. 
 

with luv,

BD 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you forgot saying: "Then your prophets and apostles are liars and are essentially useless. If they did not have discernment and God's guidance on such an important doctrine then they cannot be trusted on anything else. "

Only the false assumption by you of infallibility could justify such a statement.

THat was not a statement of infallibility and my guess is you really do understand that.  After all we are not talking about two hour church on Sunday.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It still  does not address the point.  Also who supports your premise?  Do the LDS leaders?  If the ban was a mistake God did not correct it because it was 25,30,75 or 100 years after the restoration and there was no need for miraculous interventions?  This seems like a pretty weak argument.

This does not address your forgetting your point.

[Tacenda]

Here's a youtube of a fireside currently happening. He's apologizing..

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have no idea what would lead you to say such a hateful thing!

As opposed to, for example, stating that 'virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about' authority manifests 'the very opposite of the qualities' listed in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood? And: 'To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power!'

Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a youtube of a fireside currently happening. He's apologizing..

 

From the clock, it looks like it is about ten minutes if it started on time…the Wilcoxes talking, primarily Brad…hard week for him, some no doubt heard about talk, wasn’t first time talk or reasoning, in the past he failed to see how his comments were insensitive, he is grateful for friends who have corrected him, a bit emotional…he is going to speak at the end.

Wilcoxes are back at 7:32 or so.

I can’t do keep listening…too abrasive, hearing is sensitive today, sorry.  Seems like it is going to be a typical presentation.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a youtube of a fireside currently happening. He's apologizing..

 

It seemed like a good apology, more general then the first, and acknowledged that the talk has been given multiple times in the past. Somewhat of a side note, I think it also indirectly points to why it’s really good to have diverse leadership. He specifically referenced Ahmad corbitt, who is african American, for helping, correcting, and teaching him on this…likely in a more personal loving way than can be had from those less connected let alone via internet outrage. 
 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited February 14, 2022 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

I see you are one in accord with Brad Wilcox! I have no idea what would lead you to say such a hateful thing! I cannot believe such a statement is the teaching of your church. So Protestants are "deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist!" May I quote you? I am sure that will go a long way toward positive inter-faith relationships! Congratulations! You have just outdone yourself and Brad Wilcox! I just spent an hour trying to craft a positive reply to your previous comment. How does your comment possibly not violate forum rules? More importantly how does it not violate your own faith? Now I am really confused!

Yes you are VERY confused. Strawman fallacy

THE ENTIRE POST WAS A CONDITIONAL, HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT, based on your own logic.  It was in the form "IF ...someone believed that THEN, (...) that implies they would be Xyz. "

I even then concluded that such a statement could not be right.

Here is what I actually said, emphasis added:

"Theoretically if it were true, we could not even have an altar call experience to "accept Jesus".

God could not share his teachings to others of his children.  So much for Protestant missionaries or ministers doing good for anyone.  Sounds like they are deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist.

That cannot be right. " 

Your confused interpretation does not match what is clearly being said.

Best wishes. I hope you someday actually understand our church.

@Tacenda

@Peacefully

@Calm

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not the one who said they were liars.

 

DOes God do this?  How do you know this?  There was a time that the LDS Church taught that having prophets meant something and that as President Benson would say, they get today's news today.  Well the Church still teaches this but the apologists down play it because its problematic.

 

CFR that this is what the LDS leaders teach about themselves.

Moses endorsed slavery. Paul advised women not speak in church. We do not teach that our prophets are inerrant. This is nowhere taught in our doctrine. I am confused by you questioning the doctrine of the still small voice, this is fundamental to our doctrine. yes prophets receive daily revelation, but this does not mean they become robots. We can only receive according to our understanding line upon line, precept upon precept (Isaiah 28:10) . We have never changed our understanding of prophets, human fallibility has always been fundamental to our teachings. 

[kimpearson]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a youtube of a fireside currently happening. He's apologizing..

Just watched the whole thing.  Sorry but in my opinion that was a very carefully scripted PR attempt to salvage Brad Wilcox and the Church from the damage done last week.   First up, I have never seen his wife participating in his zoom firesides and I have watched a number recently.  Second, a token black man, Ahmad Corbitt, 1st counselor in the young men's presidency actually took more time than Brad.  It was obvious that Brother Corbitt was not very prepared for the fireside and spent a lot of time defending Brad and talking Brad up.  Brad obviously read his apology from a written script.  It sounded nothing like the Brad I have heard.  I really believe it was prepared under the guidance of someone else.  Brad's talk was weak an too me was obviously not the talk Brad had planned on.  I have to question why Brother Corbitt had to bring up that Brad spent some of his youth in Ethiopia, as if that was evidence that Brad just couldn't be racist.  What I saw was Brad on a very tight leash with Brother Corbitt prepared at any moment to swoop in and save Brad.  Brad's wife inclusion seemed like an effort to appease all the women that Brad offended last weak.  The whole fireside felt a little weird and off.  I am curious if they continue the same pattern with future firesides.  This also supports my belief that Brad has been giving these firesides under the direction of those in authority over him and they knew what he was saying.
 

[JustAnAustralian]

7 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Second, a token black man, Ahmad Corbitt, 1st counselor in the young men's presidency actually took more time than Brad.

So when it was just Brad you were pushing the fact that he was the second counsellor in the YM presidency, but now you say that the FIRST counsellor is just a token black man?

8 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It sounded nothing like the Brad I have heard.

Isn't that what everyone has been clamouring for?

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Second, a token black man, Ahmad Corbitt, 1st counselor in the young men's presidency actually took more time than Brad. 

This is highly offensive. 
 

I will explain. My daughter is very good at her job in a male dominated field. She has been promoted and is currently a Project Manager on a $250 hospital  project. 
 

Some, assume she has been promoted because of her gender so she feels she has to be better and prove her qualifications constantly. 
 

Your use of the phrase ‘token black man’ belittles him and his qualifications and belittles his calling. 
 

I think it is your turn to apologize. 
 

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

This also supports my belief that Brad has been giving these firesides under the direction of those in authority over him and they knew what he was saying.
 

Or they weren’t really paying attention and just stepped in because this past week made it obvious damage control was needed.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not aiming this directly at @mfbukowski but behavior in general from some members of the church. 

Please read my comments above regarding how selective quoting can easily totally reverse the intended message 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

THat was not a statement of infallibility and my guess is you really do understand that.  After all we are not talking about two hour church on Sunday.

Only the attribution of the false doctrine of infallibility to LDS leaders would lead you to play that blame childish game.  You are by no means alone in doing so.  That is the main tack of most angry anti-Mormons.  A more dispassionate approach (which you reject) is to see LDS leaders as ordinary people who are subject to the same human frailties we are all subject to.  That has nothing at all to do with sunday-go-to-meeting discussions, and scholars do not carry on that sort of meaningless conversation.  Instead, they deal with actual facts and the world as it is.  You might try that for a change.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

You probably are right. But I would add this nuance. What role did the child play in asking God to heal? He or she simply asked God to heal via His (God's own power). That is not a power or an authority, it is a petition. If as a result God heals, it is not because of some special authority or power on the part of the petitioner, is it? Does God grant a petition of a male LDS priesthood holder in a special way that He would not to in the presence of a petition of a daughter of His, or His child from another faith?

To use your analogy any child can petition a parent for something. Is that not true?  A person's experience of God's healing as a result of a petition, or in the absence of any petition (grace) is wonderful, is it not? When I pray in Christ's name, I do so to indicate that if and when anything comes of that prayer it is solely and only by and through Him. In my humanity I may in an imperfect way mirror His love, grace, and mercy to a dying world. However I have no capacity to reflect His power as did an OT prophet for example.

If I think I am the one accomplishing any good in His name, then I may become like Elijah under the broom tree, depressed and forlorn when my supposed efforts didn't have the effect I thought they would or should. You (Mark) often bring greater understanding of the LDS faith to me. I appreciate that. If you truly believe that you are doing something unique and specifically different as an LDS priesthood holder, when you ask for healing . . . special or different from any other petitioner doing the same (your wife, daughter, sister, Methodist neighbor) then I understand better some of the exceptionalism I often see and hear in the mind of the LDS priesthood holder, as I did in listening to the talk of Brad Wilcox.

Having said that I must agree with you that I absolutely do not see that we will ever grow up to be as God is. Perhaps that inability to comprehend that fact is what separates us the most. It may be profound or it may be as simple as the difference between "like" and "as."

If I might offer you an analogy of my own. Friday morning at 4:30am my son and I took off for the four hour drive to the states to see the doctor, pick up his new glasses, buy groceries and get our mail. At around 7am we were five miles south of the border. A rather large coyote ran out into the highway and we struck him (her). The coyote died and the accident resulted in the destruction of the car bumper and radiator. Yes, we have big coyotes here. We found ourselves on the side of the road, shaken but without injury.  Fortunately we had cell phone service so I called my wife back at home. I explained what happened and our situation, asking our employees to borrow a trailer, bring it and the truck to us to load up the car and return home. We have one road that leads to the US and it is heavily traveled by big trucks! I prepared my son that we would be missing his appointment and glasses and would have a three hour wait in the car. He did well with that.

My wife unbeknownst to me got on our ward whatsapp list and asked if anyone was traveling to the states between Entronque and Palomas, she would greatly appreciate it if they would offer us any help they could. Within half an hour my cell phone began ringing with offers of help from our LDS friends, whether they were all the way back in Colonia Juarez or half an hour down the highway headed on their own trip to the states. As you all know we are not members - they call us "faithful non-Members -Our Mennonites!" We had a number of offers of help from them including men who were willing to drive the three hours each way to bring our car back.

None of them knew that we had an accident and were in trouble. That would have been acting "as" God. They had no special foresight into our situation - now that would have been prophetic-like power! Having said that, when they found out we were in trouble, they jumped to action with no regard to their own schedule to help us. That was being "like" God. They reflected His love to us, even some who aren't particularly thrilled we are in the ward! I explained to them that our workers were bringing a truck and trailer and that we were safe and fine waiting for them to come get us.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that two complete strangers also stopped to help us, offering a "Mexican chain" tow into Palomas where they knew of a radiator repair shop. Another gave us water to drink and some snacks. We accepted the offer of the chain tow (if you know what that is) and the snacks, and found ourselves in half an hour in Palomas where there were restrooms and places to get something to eat, etc. I will probably never see the man who gave us the tow again. He also reflected Christ to us (I have no idea what if any faith he had) and refused all offers of money for his help. He wished us God's blessings and went on his way. As only can happen in a small Mexican town, people driving by us in the town began yelling at us "Aqui esta el mata coyote!" Here is the coyote killer! It was all in good humor. We were famous!

By mid-afternoon we were back home. Many people that day reflected kindness and love to us. Some were LDS, others probably Catholic or Pentecostal, my wife who has a "special" love for us, and my faithful workers who performed above and beyond! Our LDS friends were wonderful examples of God's love; not of His power. Both the ladies and men offered  to help. We are grateful for all those who offered or helped, and understand those who hurried along on their own life's journey that morning. God's love and His power (authority) are not the same. We saw lots of the former Friday morning and were grateful. In that sense all those who took time out of their busy day to offer us help were exceptional, weren't they? Thanks for reading this epistle.

I am sorry to say that it seems to me that we don't communicate well, my only intent has been to teach you about our church, an it appears I have been a miserable failure.

It tends to come back 180° from what I intended!

Perhaps it would be best if I promise not to comment on your posts, and you do likewise. 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only the attribution of the false doctrine of infallibility to LDS leaders would lead you to play that blame childish game.  You are by no means alone in doing so.  That is the main tack of most angry anti-Mormons.  A more dispassionate approach (which you reject) is to see LDS leaders as ordinary people who are subject to the same human frailties we are all subject to.  That has nothing at all to do with sunday-go-to-meeting discussions, and scholars do not carry on that sort of meaningless conversation.  Instead, they deal with actual facts and the world as it is.  You might try that for a change.

Perhap you should try for a change to not put words into others mouths as well as learn a bit about what the LDS leaders have said about themselves and following them.  I do not expect, nor never have expected perfection not infallibility.  But on a major doctrinal issue that was perpetuated for over 100 years with numerous statement one would think that prophets and apostles would have bene better directed.  But I understand.  They has such a bad track record that is becoming more and more apparent that the apologists has to downplay their ability to get things right and call them liars.  

Edited February 14, 2022 by Teancum