Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[CA Steve]

I notice that Brother Willcox has issued a second apology. Maybe I missed it but in either one of his statements did he explicitly explain why his comments were wrong or did he just apologize for hurting people?

Apologizing for hurting people is one thing but showing you understand why your comments are wrong is important also.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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, not 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.  

Of course you have never expected perfection or infallibility from the Brethren.  Nor have I.  The difference between us is that I never attribute perfection or infallibility to them as a point of attack on their errors.  That is unconscionable and unfair on your part.  It's called the "blame game."  Their mistakes need to be called out loud and clear on every occasion, just as Orson Pratt publicly called out Brigham's mistakes.  Lying about the Brethren in order to call them liars is all too convenient.  I notice that you have pointedly ignored the facts, and have not bothered to take stock of the comments of Tarik LaCour on the matter.  Pro-Mormon apologists and anti-Mormon attackers both ignore reality.  Do you really like that fever swamp, Teancum?

[Peacefully]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I notice that Brother Willcox has issued a second apology. Maybe I missed it but in either one of his statements did he explicitly explain why his comments were wrong or did he just apologize for hurting people?

Apologizing for hurting people is one thing but showing you understand why your comments are wrong is important also.

Maybe it is hard for him to explain since he just learned what he said was hurtful. Kind of strange that a man in his position didn’t already know that but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He probably figures less is more at this point. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I notice that Brother Willcox has issued a second apology. Maybe I missed it but in either one of his statements did he explicitly explain why his comments were wrong or did he just apologize for hurting people?

Apologizing for hurting people is one thing but showing you understand why your comments are wrong is important also.

At about 16 minutes in…He apologized for being insensitive. I will have to hear it again, but the sense there was a significant discussion and that he was “corrected and taught” about his talk and “his reasoning” makes me think his friends got into the why with him. For whatever reason, he didn’t say “my reasoning was wrong”, just it was insensitive, but he may wanted it to be not so explicit to not offend or damage all those members he set up in false security with his bogus reasoning who need for some reason to find a reason to make the ban okay, aren’t ready to move to ‘we don’t know for sure why the ban happen, but good chance it wasn’t inspired and we shouldn’t defend it since we don’t know why’, though that kind of position too often results in speculation that ends up being racist IMO.   If someone is comfortable with “we don’t know, but let’s make sure we aren’t nurturing racism today as individuals or as a community, I see that as a healthy position. But Wilcox did read to me like he was talking about his reasoning being corrected and him taught a new approach. I think we have to judge on how he teaches in the future in the subject if he does. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Freedom said:

Moses endorsed slavery. Paul advised women not speak in church. We do not teach that our prophets are inerrant.

All the more reason to conclude that Moses and Paul were no more in tune as a special prophet or apostle than you or I am. It seems really that these men are just products of their culture and/or God is not powerful enough to help them overcome such obstacles.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you have never expected perfection or infallibility from the Brethren.  Nor have I.  The difference between us is that I never attribute perfection or infallibility to them as a point of attack on their errors.  That is unconscionable and unfair on your part.  It's called the "blame game."  Their mistakes need to be called out loud and clear on every occasion, just as Orson Pratt publicly called out Brigham's mistakes.  Lying about the Brethren in order to call them liars is all too convenient.  I notice that you have pointedly ignored the facts, and have not bothered to take stock of the comments of Tarik LaCour on the matter.  Pro-Mormon apologists and anti-Mormon attackers both ignore reality.  Do you really like that fever swamp, Teancum?

Once again you build a straw man. Feel free to have the last word.  

[Bernard Gui]

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For early LDS, race was more of a side issue as the number of blacks in the church were small, the number of racist assumptions remained even in many of the proponents for changes in society or the church, and the basic issues and order of the church loomed more present as they tried to carve out space for themselves in a society that already saw them as a problem and circumspect at best. 

Would you please explain this further? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

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. 

A few more points.

I do not claim that the LDS Church teaches that their prophets are inerrant though culturally Latter-day Saint act like it.  Just look at the two earring thing from President Hinckley and later remarks by Bednar about following the prophet.

I understand the concept of the still small voice and was not referring to that part of your remarks.  Do they receive daily revelation?  About what?  How do you know that?  How is your comment about being robots even relevant?  It is interesting how you and Robert construe can conflate what I am saying. I am pointing to something of major importance-the priesthood ban.  Robert said that LDS leaders were liars about this when they taught that it was the mark of Cain or the idea that such were less valiant in the pre-existence and so on.  You may think an expectation that a prophet of God would perhaps get a strong message from God on something so significant is expecting infallibility and that is your privilege. Perhaps you need to lower your expectations to make a belief that they really do get direction from God work. But one who may think, especially having heard for years that God will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray, that perpetuating what is now called a mistake shows that these men really are not in tune with God, well it should not be a surprise.  And it does not demonstrate I think nor ever did think there is a doctrine of infallibility. 

 

[smac97]

Brad Wilcox has apologized again:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/13/saying-he-has-been/

Quote

Saying he has been ‘corrected,’ LDS leader Brad Wilcox again apologizes for his remarks on race
“It wasn’t the first time I’d given that talk,” he states, while thanking friends who have “taught” him how he got it wrong.

Brad Wilcox, a high-level leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Brigham Young University religion professor, issued a second apology Sunday night regarding remarks he made last week about Black members and the faith’s former priesthood/temple ban.

“This has been a hard week for me,” he said, speaking at a virtual event for youths in the Edmonton, Alberta, region.

“Some of you may have heard about a talk I gave last Sunday night,” he continued. “Now, it wasn’t the first time I’d given that talk and it wasn’t the first time I’ve used the ideas I shared or the line of reasoning that I used to try and address some difficult topics.

“In the past, I failed to see how my comments could be seen as insensitive and hurtful, and I’m very grateful for friends — friends like Brother [Ahmad] Corbitt -– who have helped me, and corrected me, and taught me,” he said, referring to the man who serves alongside Wilcox as part of the church’s Young Men general presidency.

Corbitt, a Black Latter-day Saint, was present for Sunday’s event.

“Once again, I apologize,” Wilcox added, “and am grateful, more than ever, for the atonement of Jesus Christ, which allows us to trust in the Lord.”
...
After Wilcox’s latest apology, Corbitt spoke, focusing his comments on his decision to serve a mission following his conversion to the faith while growing up in Philadelphia. The remainder of the fireside then consisted of a back-and-forth between Corbitt and Wilcox as the two discussed the theme of trusting God.

Troy Mills, a Black Latter-day Saint and scholar of Black religious history, was disappointed by Wilcox’s comments Sunday.

“Unfortunately, I fail to see how this apology advances the conversation,” he said. “He didn’t address the insensitive remarks or why they were insensitive.

Mills, a predoctoral fellow of religious studies at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, was not especially comforted by Corbitt’s presence or remarks, either.

“There are so many Black Latter-day Saints who understand the history of these issues, but those aren’t the voices that are elevated to address these issues or to leadership positions,” Mills said.

“Instead, you had Brother Corbitt there performing damage control,” he added, “parroting what a white leader would say, with the idea that if the same things are rehashed by a Black person, then it makes it more acceptable.”
...
Neither apology addressed additional concerns raised by many on social media regarding his statements on women, whom he referred to as “girls” and characterized as “loud.”

He also has yet to address criticism regarding his description of Christians of other faiths as merely “playing church,” much like a child plays house.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

Looks like he's in for another hard week...

[Navidad]

On 2/13/2022 at 12:42 AM, mfbukowski said:

Yes.

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.  

I truly and sincerely do not want my "dialogue" with Mark to end up as it is now. I believe that it (the dialogue between two well-meaning people of different faiths) is difficult and challenging, therefore it is of great value. I believe that Mark and I talked past each other. I did not give careful attention to what he said in his replies, nor did he mine. We both spoke, to a certain degree out of our preconceived beliefs about the other. This causes a lack of focus and careful attention. It is as if we already know what is behind the other's comments, so we respond to that, not to what is actually being said. I know I cannot speak for Mark. I understand that.

I read Mark's comments as declarative, because I find him to often be declarative. I can't speak for how he read mine. I tried to write a lengthy reply to further explain mine, but that certainly didn't "work." I now see the "if-then" nature of what he wrote and I was wrong to respond harshly out of my first reaction to what he wrote. In that sense I was not responding to him. That isn't fair. I believe he did the same in the sense of the harshness of his reply to me. I do not sense he was replying to me either. I believe these harsh words (I quoted above) flowed off his keyboard with the same ease as my reaction did from mine. I regret both. I can only own my own.

I see two things that I said as "triggering this hurtful conversation. I noted that I find similarities between LDS priesthood holders with hubris to Fundamentalist pastors with hubris. I have observed and regretted the existence of both. I did equate them (which I guess made Hamba join in). I own this equating of the two. I did and I do equate them as equal, especially in light of the D&C passage that was quoted to me. Certainly not all LDS priesthood holders have hubris, so I am guilty of generalizing. My bad. Not all Fundamentalist pastors have hubris, so I am guilty of generalizing there as well. I do not equate power and authority with fruits of the Spirit. I own that.

Second, I own that I do not believe that we will ever be "as" God. Never. I believe that sanctification and perhaps exaltation is a process of becoming more "like" Him that goes on into eternity. So therefore I do not believe we will ever share His attributes. At best we can mirror or reflect them since we are made in His image, especially in this life. I strive to mirror and reflect, not to be of the nature of God, simply because I believe I am not.

Mark has indicated it might be better if he doesn't respond to my posts and I don't respond to his. On the other hand, I think it is better if I simply go away. I don't belong here. He does. I am not even on the edge of inside of this forum. However, IF I go away, THEN I surrender to the idea that we are not, will not, and cannot be at peace or in harmony with each other. Our differences then become more important than our relationship, even an internet relationship.

I simply have to believe there is a way to get past this mutual defensiveness and protectiveness. It takes time, energy, and risk to understand the other. I often either haven't had or haven't taken the time, energy, and risk needed for that task. And it is a task. Is it worthwhile? What do you think?

Edited February 14, 2022 by Navidad

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Maybe it is hard for him to explain since he just learned what he said was hurtful. Kind of strange that a man in his position didn’t already know that but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He probably figures less is more at this point. 

I get the reasoning behind not explaining, in that there is no limit to how deep a hole you can dig for yourself but, in my opinion, for the church to move forward in these issues, I think people in positions of authority need to start explain why past statements and practices were wrong, not just apologize or, worse, merely acknowledge they were wrong without knowing why. Seriously, if you do not understand why something is wrong, how do you know it really is? So for now, when Brother Wilcox is apologizing without explaining why he was wrong, it comes across to me as someone who is reacting to an outcry and is not sure what he did wrong other than his good friends are telling him it is.

 

We need leaders at high levels publicly commenting on these issues, not just apologies, otherwise, in another ten years, we will run into another Randy Bott or Brad Wilcox.

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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. 

2 others have already pointed out that the phrasing is offensive. I’d like to add that. I think you were trying to say they put a black man in to bolster the credentials of Wilcox’s apology. Which is already a very cynical take on it…but to call him a token black ignores the multiple credentials and reasons Corbitt had every right to be apart of the fireside as the first counselor (Wilcox is 2nd counselor) and as the black convert claimed to helping straighten Wilcox out. As a POC who’s felt the discomfort of having my opinions and capacity somewhat questioned because an assumption of tokenism, this comment is astoundingly insensitive. I would hope you not repeat it. 
Furthermore I liked Corbett’s part. I didn’t notice a massive imbalance in a tag team lesson. In those one is bound to talk more. Of course I was watching at that point in part for nostalgia. Corbitt was the stake president in an area on my mission. He was widely loved, great with the youth, and a dynamic leader. I was chuckling because formalities isn’t his thing and he trips on it in the meeting, preferring first person names and more casual banter. I preferred both his and wilcox’s manner of teaching this round: something more personal and from experience. 

But I think we likely watched this with a very different starting point. I didn’t need Wilcox to prove something, just to be sincere in trying to correct a wrong. He hit that for me and I have no need to push that further. Hopefully it shows when similar topics come up again. As i mentioned your remark comes off cynical to me in approach. I think there is a more compassionate read. I picture myself the couple of times I’ve stepped in it and offended someone in a way that could be damaging. I don’t take it well…it frustrates and eats at me and i need to process it for a bit. Wilcox stepped in it big time. Likely larger than he’s ever done before in terms of immediate public response. And it’s sOmething that then likely made him look at every lesson he taught with similar lines of reasoning for heaven knows how many years at BYU, the students who’ve also popped up noting problems with his line of thought. That’s likely going to hit hard. From the sound of people who personally know him, he seems like he’s generally a good guy. Which means he likely went through similar emotions to anyone with a conscience who hurts people and maybe made it harder for others to feel comfortable in church when what he wants is likely the exact opposite. If it were me, I would be cautious, nervous, and emotional when giving an apology soon after. In other words not much different than Wilcox. 
 

likewise there’s a more compassionate take on why Ahmad was there. He’s the first counselor helping the second counselor through what’s been a difficult learning experience that likely shook wilcox’s confidence as well. On top of that he has a duty and a calling to help the youth and the presidency just stepped in a big turd while trying to do so. Presidencies and leadership in the church, at it’s best, tends to work together and help each other. There’s thing Ahmad could say that Wilcox couldn’t that needed to be said to help clean up and correct the work and get back on track to their main purposes of helping the youth.

 

note: i am Not saying this to let Wilcox off the hook. He still has to do the next part of repentance and turn away from the problematic teaching points. I’m just not willing to keep him on the hook longer than I’d needed. He apologized, he tried to do so sincerely and carefully, and for me at least that’s enough. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited February 14, 2022 by BlueDreams

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

2 others have already pointed out that the phrasing is offensive. I’d like to add that. I think you were trying to say they put a black man in to bolster the credentials of Wilcox’s apology. Which is already a very cynical take on it…but to call him a token black ignores the multiple credentials and reasons Corbitt had every right to be apart of the fireside as the first counselor (Wilcox is 2nd counselor) as as as the black convert claimed to helping straighten Wilcox out. As a POC who’s felt the discomfort of having my opinions and capacity somewhat questioned because an assumption of tokenism, this comment is astoundingly insensitive. I would hope you not repeat it. 

How many other times has Corbitt been a part of a fireside with Wilcox?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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.
 

Yes, I'm afraid that the days are gone where members in high positions will be allowed free reign with controversial subjects. And I keep thinking Brad needs to apologize more for the other subjects he got sooo wrong.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you please explain this further? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

Sure 

The early early church were open to black members in full callings and priesthood. BY himself early on said as much. But this was also at a point when church converts were overwhelmingly white and new black converts were freemen of some sort in more northern states. It also didn’t stop or correct common racial beliefs about black people being dependents of at least ham, if not Cain as well. Which meant the issue of race and the issues white people had with race were not at a forefront. But there also wasn’t an invested interest in the welfare of blacks either. Not in a callous way, more in the way I’ve seen that play out in general with people who are not directly connected to black experiences and concerns. The issue is literally marginalized for them. It became a larger issue in some ways as they moved west, but more so in their continued interactions with the white populations in power. First in Missouri where they tried to strike a balance between not pro but not fully anti slavery. Their stances could be picked up by pro-slave people as part of the reasons to criticize and throw suspicions at the Saints. Out west, when they’ve already felt the brunt of what can happen when the larger government doesn’t support you in the form of mass displacement, constant suspicion, and continued sense of threat or fragility in their stance with the US.

Meanwhile in the States, the concerns and debates around race are getting hotter and at times more violent. One argument used more frequently was to smear abolitionist as pro race mixing. Slavery was not just a massive part of wealth attainment in the south, it was also protrayed by proponents as maintaining an appropriate social order where the lesser black populace would be kept in a separate diminutive role. Many mainline abolitionists were often seeking compromises to either slowly squeeze out slavery or create means to maintain separation that was portrayed as the natural/scientific/god-given order of things (basically all forms of common wisdom at that time in the US assumed something like this). Which is in part why Lincoln’s plan, up until a group of black men spoke with him before the emancipation proclamation, was effectively to ship freed slaves back to Africa. This was viewed as a humane solution though the black populace largely disagreed.

Mormons were seen as fringe and questionably white people. Claims of miscegenation via polygamy were widespread and the separation meant that most the US had no direct interaction with Latter Day Saints. Being deemed non-white at this point had serious consequences, both to citizen rights, economic opportunities, potential reprieves from grievances, and social recognition. Being viewed as black or likes black was to be placed basically on the bottom of the social hierarchy and could strip you of almost all basic legal rights.

So to recap, you have a fringe largely white body of people who have very few black voices injected in their conversations about race*. You have very old racist beliefs that didn’t just disappear via baptism nor a large enough invested group within the faith to press against the general flow of basically all society which was quickly moving to a hot bloody war.  And you have a group of people who have already been treated poorly and ignored in their grievances multiple times trying to claim a homeland in the wilderness without threat or violence against them. I’d posit that likely for BY and other leaders black issues were more marginal than the things they were immediately facing and when it was on the table as a topic it would be filtered and decided overwhelmingly by white voices more invested in self-preservation and culturally aligned within a larger dominant society that does not see blacks as equal to whites. That will drastically effect the questions asked, lines of reasoning explored, and what we personally bring to the table when talking to God in profound ways. I don’t think that was a bad branch that was ready to be removed just yet as the good growing remained tenuous for decades on several fronts and then took a while for the larger body to catch up and recognize it as a problem once it was less tenuous. 
 

 

*we really underestimate how who is at the table talking effects how decisions and beliefs grow and change. A recent example to me was with the rapid growth of the BLM movement after floyd. Most polls point to a quick influx of support by all races (thought blacks were very high in support) in june 2020. This tapered off for all groups but blacks by september 2020 where it then stabilized. The sharpest drop was in white support. Imho a lot of this is due to the conversations being had and who was there to have them. 2 very different narratives were quickly taking shape and these narratives correlated strongly with racial lines. 

 

With luv, 

BD
 

Edited February 14, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How many other times has Corbitt been a part of a fireside with Wilcox?

No idea. I don’t usually watch youth firesides or track theirs. 
 

Nor did any of my points insist that Corbitt’s part in the fireside was merely coincidental. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I get the reasoning behind not explaining, in that there is no limit to how deep a hole you can dig for yourself but, in my opinion, for the church to move forward in these issues, I think people in positions of authority need to start explain why past statements and practices were wrong, not just apologize or, worse, merely acknowledge they were wrong without knowing why. Seriously, if you do not understand why something is wrong, how do you know it really is? So for now, when Brother Wilcox is apologizing without explaining why he was wrong, it comes across to me as someone who is reacting to an outcry and is not sure what he did wrong other than his good friends are telling him it is.

 

We need leaders at high levels publicly commenting on these issues, not just apologies, otherwise, in another ten years, we will run into another Randy Bott or Brad Wilcox.

Absolutely get where you are coming from. Maybe instead of going on the apology tour he should sit down with a diverse group of members and really listen to what they have to say. It could be televised so we can all learn. 

[juliann]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

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.
 

Seriously, the First Counselor to Wilcox's Second Counselor is a fireside token? That is as racist as anything Wilcox did. Of course it was a prepared apology, duh? I sure hope the PR department did it after that train disaster. I hope to see a lot more of Bro. Corbitt. When they have someone has charasmatic as he is, he should be the face of the YM's program. Wilcox is too old, to be honest. I only jumped around the video and this and the former fireside have been all I've seen of Wilcox so I still don't understand his popularity so I am not in a position to evaluate it. I do think having Mrs. Wilcox sitting in the background looking like she was on the ready to pounce was strange. I'm glad she finally pushed her way in to say something. It was important to hear from her after her unfortunate post. It left me with a much better impression of her, she sounded assured and in charge. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

No idea. I don’t usually watch youth firesides or track theirs. 
 

Nor did any of my points insist that Corbitt’s part in the fireside was merely coincidental. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

Then, I would suggest, that we do not know whether or not his appearance was coincidental.  And, if in fact he was there as a result of Brother Wilcox's recent comments, I would find it troublesome to say the least.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Looks like he's in for another hard week...

He has been doing this for years, chances are it is going to take a significant amount of time to not only change his heart, but for him to find a better place to settle his reasoning and defenses at.  There is criticism out there and faithful members who work with other members who are struggling because of these criticisms need to be able to do more than say ‘don’t worry about them’ or the equivalent to be helpful.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Then, I would suggest, that we do not know whether or not his appearance was coincidental.  And, if in fact he was there as a result of Brother Wilcox's recent comments, I would find it troublesome to say the least.

I don't. Frankly, I assumed they YM presidency got together and came with a plan together. I could picture Corbitt offering help and to be apart of it while in conversation with Wilcox directly about this. I never really assumed the appearance was coincidental. 

What is troublesome for you about it, if it was planned due to recent comments?

 

With luv,

BD 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't. Frankly, I assumed they YM presidency got together and came with a plan together. I could picture Corbitt offering help and to be apart of it while in conversation with Wilcox directly about this. I never really assumed the appearance was coincidental. 

What is troublesome for you about it, if it was planned due to recent comments?

 

With luv,

BD 

If this was the first time Corbitt was included in the fireside specifically because of what Willcox said and you do not see why that is troublesome, I am not sure we have much to discuss.

I wonder how you would react if out of nowhere you were invited part of  something simple because of the color of your skin?

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If this was the first time Corbitt was included in the fireside specifically because of what Willcox said and you do not see why that is troublesome, I am not sure we have much to discuss.

I wonder how you would react if out of nowhere you were invited part of  something simple because of the color of your skin?

You. Really. Need. To. Stop. 

The rest of us watched him and only thought what an impressive leader he was. It is telling what you see. What I saw was Corbitt was in charge. It is unbelievably offensive and insensitive to demean him as a token when he is technically in a higher position than Wilcox. This is one more piece of toxic behavior by some whites in the church that blocks badly needed progress. You have been told this and yet you persist. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Sure 

The early early church were open to black members in full callings and priesthood. BY himself early on said as much. But this was also at a point when church converts were overwhelmingly white and new black converts were freemen of some sort in more northern states. It also didn’t stop or correct common racial beliefs about black people being dependents of at least ham, if not Cain as well. Which meant the issue of race and the issues white people had with race were not at a forefront. But there also wasn’t an invested interest in the welfare of blacks either. Not in a callous way, more in the way I’ve seen that play out in general with people who are not directly connected to black experiences and concerns. The issue is literally marginalized for them. It became a larger issue in some ways as they moved west, but more so in their continued interactions with the white populations in power. First in Missouri where they tried to strike a balance between not pro but not fully anti slavery. Their stances could be picked up by pro-slave people as part of the reasons to criticize and throw suspicions at the Saints. Out west, when they’ve already felt the brunt of what can happen when the larger government doesn’t support you in the form of mass displacement, constant suspicion, and continued sense of threat or fragility in their stance with the US.

Meanwhile in the States, the concerns and debates around race are getting hotter and at times more violent. One argument used more frequently was to smear abolitionist as pro race mixing. Slavery was not just a massive part of wealth attainment in the south, it was also protrayed by proponents as maintaining an appropriate social order where the lesser black populace would be kept in a separate diminutive role. Many mainline abolitionists were often seeking compromises to either slowly squeeze out slavery or create means to maintain separation that was portrayed as the natural/scientific/god-given order of things (basically all forms of common wisdom at that time in the US assumed something like this). Which is in part why Lincoln’s plan, up until a group of black men spoke with him before the emancipation proclamation, was effectively to ship freed slaves back to Africa. This was viewed as a humane solution though the black populace largely disagreed.

Mormons were seen as fringe and questionably white people. Claims of miscegenation via polygamy were widespread and the separation meant that most the US had no direct interaction with Latter Day Saints. Being deemed non-white at this point had serious consequences, both to citizen rights, economic opportunities, potential reprieves from grievances, and social recognition. Being viewed as black or likes black was to be placed basically on the bottom of the social hierarchy and could strip you of almost all basic legal rights.

So to recap, you have a fringe largely white body of people who have very few black voices injected in their conversations about race*. You have very old racist beliefs that didn’t just disappear via baptism nor a large enough invested group within the faith to press against the general flow of basically all society which was quickly moving to a hot bloody war.  And you have a group of people who have already been treated poorly and ignored in their grievances multiple times trying to claim a homeland in the wilderness without threat or violence against them. I’d posit that likely for BY and other leaders black issues were more marginal than the things they were immediately facing and when it was on the table as a topic it would be filtered and decided overwhelmingly by white voices more invested in self-preservation and culturally aligned within a larger dominant society that does not see blacks as equal to whites. That will drastically effect the questions asked, lines of reasoning explored, and what we personally bring to the table when talking to God in profound ways. I don’t think that was a bad branch that was ready to be removed just yet as the good growing remained tenuous for decades on several fronts and then took a while for the larger body to catch up and recognize it as a problem once it was less tenuous. 
 

 

*we really underestimate how who is at the table talking effects how decisions and beliefs grow and change. A recent example to me was with the rapid growth of the BLM movement after floyd. Most polls point to a quick influx of support by all races (thought blacks were very high in support) in june 2020. This tapered off for all groups but blacks by september 2020 where it then stabilized. The sharpest drop was in white support. Imho a lot of this is due to the conversations being had and who was there to have them. 2 very different narratives were quickly taking shape and these narratives correlated strongly with racial lines. 

 

With luv, 

BD
 

A book came out a couple of years ago,  backing up your position, showing how Mormons were regarded as a "mongrel race of polygamists" simply because of the level of theoretical integration in the church.

The very notion that a Black priesthood holder could marry several white women was seen as a horrible abomination, so Mormons were to be avoided at all costs.

There was a presentation at FAIR made by the author

Perhaps @Calm could find it easily.

Edited February 14, 2022 by mfbukowski