Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Here is an example that haunts me to this day. I was raised that women stayed home and men worked. We had been married one year when I turn down my wife's opportunity to go to a major California University with her dad footing the bill. I turned it down  for 2 reasons. 1. If she wanted to go to USC, I would pay for her. 2. Why would she go if she was going to be a mother?

Well here we are 48 years later and she is still not a mother. What a dumbass I was. Not having an MBA held her back at the top corporate level. She was more qualified in all areas but her job was given to someone that had the degree. Even after an agreement to give her the job and leaving her previous company to get it. She doesn't hold it against me but I do.

There was a lot of that happening in our generation, Rod. 

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Not that it's any of my beeswax, but you and @mfbukowski are two of the posters whose writings I appreciate the most.  Must admit that sometimes Mark's posts go over my head even when I stand up on my chair.  

That's the problem.  You should be digging holes instead!

Let me know when that happens and I'll be happy to post a couple of hundred lines that will still not make sense.

I think N and I just need marriage counseling.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Brother Corbitt is a black man living pretty much as a white man.  Listening to him talk, he appears to have almost no connection to the larger black community. 

IMO, your statements are worse than Brother Wilcox's. You should stop digging. I did not know in order to be black you had to think, act, live a certain way. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think N and I just need marriage counseling.

I just tried to send you a personal message. I was told you 'cannot receive messages'. Full in-box?

[CA Steve]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you curious about her actual experiences or are you suggesting she needs to try and imagine herself in that kind of situation to relate to how Brother Corbitt is feeling about the situation? 

Hi Calm,

I am/was genuinely interested in her response, that she gave above, to such a situation. She always brings valuable perspective to this board. Her response is interesting in that it illustrates someone who has experienced times where she found herself in a situation where she was invited, not for her qualifications, of which she has many, but because she was black.

[Calm]

Just now, CA Steve said:

Hi Calm,

I am/was genuinely interested in her response, that she gave above, to such a situation. She always brings valuable perspective to this board. Her response is interesting in that it illustrates someone who has experienced times where she found herself in a situation where she was invited, not for her qualifications, of which she has many, but because she was black.

I so agree.  We are very blessed to have her and a variety of others on the board that have experienced issues many of us are concerned with, but lack much personal firsthand experience with, including having faith crises and confronting racism and sexism and other prejudices. 
 

Just to think about in the future, you might want to verbally recognize that someone has at least likely had the experiences because otherwise it sounds similar to the “put yourself in their shoes” trope, which if they’ve ‘worn the same shoes’ already, it may come across as patronizing or clueless about who you are talking to…which is not a problem you have had as a poster about other posters that I can recall. I honestly was rather surprised by your comment because it was so generic, could have been said to me as well as any other poster.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sometimes division needs to occur before true unity can happen…could so go with a pruning analogy here.   

Sorry, I missed the pruning analogy... but I'm not sure how that works at the top, with the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, then with the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and so on. 

There are so many points of offense and division raised in this instance -- racism, sexism, religious bigotry, religious/Church loyalty, social awareness, Church history, female ordination, expectations for leadership's example, Christlike ministering to the weak in faith and to non-members, ecumenicalism, teaching youth, the generation gap(s), motivational talks vs. witnesses of Christ... and more! Dividing with intent on each and any point can take on a commitment and a life of its own, as does preserving that which we have in common (e.g. testimony of Christ, Book of Mormon, Restoration, Baptism and Gift of the Holy Ghost, Sacrament, etc.). I would advocate, rather than living two lives, we keep division at bay by avoiding the spirit of contention, so that we can use our differences of opinion to teach and learn together (council process) and arrive at something better.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is weird you are giving out lectures on avoiding black voices when you have yet to interacting with one who is responding on this thread in very substantive posts. 

Nothing new. It was only last month that Kim was saying that the non-North American church leaders are practically North American because they act like North Americans.

 

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I so agree.  We are very blessed to have her and a variety of others on the board that have experienced issues many of us are concerned with, but lack much personal firsthand experience with, including having faith crises and confronting racism and sexism and other prejudices. 
 

Just to think about in the future, you might want to verbally recognize that someone has at least likely had the experiences because otherwise it sounds similar to the “put yourself in their shoes” trope, which if they’ve ‘worn the same shoes’ already, it may come across as patronizing or clueless about who you are talking to…which is not a problem you have had as a poster about other posters that I can recall. I honestly was rather surprised by your comment because it was so generic, could have been said to me as well as any other poster.

Maybe I am guilty of assuming too much of other readers. I assumed everyone knew that BD was black. I am not sure how my question would have made much sense otherwise. Given the topic, I thought that was abundantly clear. 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe I am guilty of assuming too much of other readers. I assumed everyone knew that BD was black. I am not sure how my question would have made much sense otherwise. Given the topic, I thought that was abundantly clear. 

I was confused I guess because you used “how would…” rather than “how did…” as given BD’s background to me it is pretty much a given it had happened to her…so it just may be I use “would” in a slightly different way than you and maybe others do, see it as more future or abstract.

 

 

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not a lot over all in my life and just a very few now I am pretty housebound. In fact I will be quite open and say I have come to rely on Bluedreams a great deal as well as reading some of the blogs by black members.

However I feel very capable to handle the sexist stuff on my own and to rely on my many experiences with my numerous nonmember friends when it came to Brother Wilcox’s comments there, neither of which have been addressed yet, so I am waiting to see what happens there. 
 

Why go to the Trib when we have a black member here responding?

It is weird you are giving out lectures on avoiding black voices when you have yet to interacting with one who is responding on this thread in very substantive posts. 

I will confess that I didn't know anyone on this board was black, brown or white.  I don't think about the color of the skin of those posting.  If someone on this board is black and they feel they can make a comment based on their experience, I am happy to listen.  I have a number of close family members involved in black lives matters and living with black partners in the black communities here in the Northwest.  I have been made painfully aware of my white privilege and mistaken beliefs of so many years.  I still don't fully comprehend the experience of many of our black brothers and sisters but I do know that the thoughts and spoken words of Brad Wilcox is something they have been dealing with and tying to get the attention of Church leaders for years now.  Many of them have expressed the frustration of being told you now have the priesthood so there doesn't need to be any further conversation.  Most of the black young members I know have just simply stopped going to church.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will confess that I didn't know anyone on this board was black, brown or white.  I don't think about the color of the skin of those posting.  If someone on this board is black and they feel they can make a comment based on their experience, I am happy to listen.  I have a number of close family members involved in black lives matters and living with black partners in the black communities here in the Northwest.  I have been made painfully aware of my white privilege and mistaken beliefs of so many years.  I still don't fully comprehend the experience of many of our black brothers and sisters but I do know that the thoughts and spoken words of Brad Wilcox is something they have been dealing with and tying to get the attention of Church leaders for years now.  Many of them have expressed the frustration of being told you now have the priesthood so there doesn't need to be any further conversation.  Most of the black young members I know have just simply stopped going to church.

Maybe, take a minute and have them read over your responses and hear what that might have to say about it.

[kimpearson]

11 hours 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) 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 

I missed your comment earlier.  I have nothing against Brother Corbitt but I feel strongly he was picked to help Brad solely because of the color of his skin.  Where has he been for the last two years?  If he was so close to Brad, why has he said nothing until now?  I listened to his comments closely and they seemed to be comments assuring us that Brad is really a good guy.  Why would he bring up Brad's years as a young man in Ethiopia?  If you are connected to other black members of the Church, I am sure you have read their view that is different from you own on Brother Corbitt's role in this fireside.  It seems very easy to say well he is part of the young men's presidency and has a right to be there when he has been absent from every single fireside I have found from Brad Wilcox for the last two years.

I feel the same way about Sister Wilcox being there.  I have nothing against her but in my opinion, she was a part of that fireside because she was a woman.  She has never been part of any of Brad's firesides to the youth that I have seen.

All of this wouldn't bother me so much if I saw any other true efforts to reconcile the Church's history on blacks.  The essay is so weak on its condemnation of past racism that most don't even see it in the essay.  President Oak's comment about the church never apologizing is deeply offensive.  The thing that bothers me the most is that all of my family and friends and my wife's living in rural Idaho and Utah and many living in larger cities still believe just as Brad Wilcox.  They are uncomfortable around blacks and still say so many racist things.  I come from a huge LDS family, my wife is a great great great granddaughter of Wilford Woodruff.   Well over half of my current ward still believes that God withheld the priesthood from the blacks for a reason.  I am tired of hearing it when Church leaders could so easily address it.  Did Brother Corbitt try  to address it in this fireside?  He had a great opportunity and it would have made such an impact on the youth of the Church but he didn't.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

will confess that I didn't know anyone on this board was black, brown or white. 

Do you even bother to read people’s posts?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I was confused I guess because you used “how would…” rather than “how did…” as given BD’s background to me it is pretty much a given it had happened to her…so it just may be I use “would” in a slightly different way than you and maybe others do, see it as more future or abstract.

 

 

I did not assume she had encountered such a situation. Maybe that was an oversight on my part.

Edited February 15, 2022 by CA Steve

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you even bother to read people’s posts?

When I asserted that I like General Conference on the other thread, he 'explained' to me that that's because I'm a married, wealthy, white, North American male ...

Edited February 15, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[JustAnAustralian]

44 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

It seems very easy to say well he is part of the young men's presidency and has a right to be there when he has been absent from every single fireside I have found from Brad Wilcox for the last two years.

You seem to want to keep insisting that Brad was only at these firesides because he was/is in the YM Presidency. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

How many black friends do you have?  You seem to have no idea how offensive it is to many black people to have someone like Brother Corbitt held up as an example of blacks.  Brother Corbitt is a black man living pretty much as a white man.  Listening to him talk, he appears to have almost no connection to the larger black community.  This ploy of holding up a black man as an example of  how great an organization, country, etc.  is doing for blacks in one of the major complaints of the black community.  It just shows white privilege that so many whites are completely blind too.  Once again I will share the thoughts of a black member from the Salt Lake Tribune.

 

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.”

There is only one way to be a Black man and it isn’t Bro Corbitt?

[Bernard Gui]

11 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
 

Thanks!

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

It’s time to write a new talk?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I did not assume she had encountered such a situation. Maybe that was an oversight on my part.

Perhaps I am more cynical than you are or just had  enough female black and minority friends as a youth who expressed their distaste at being asked to join or perform when they didn’t volunteer so as to present a diverse picture for the school (Northern California, middle and upper middle class with about 1/4 of the school bused from the next town or two down, lower income, groups rarely mixed except in PE) that I just assume it will happen for any young female minority who hangs around a lot of whites at school or work where there are PR reasons to make the school or company appear more diverse than it was.
 

Though my kids grew up in classes that were around 1/4 to 1/3 minority where everyone was getting chances to lead or perform, play the solos, whatever.  Lots of immigrants from all over Asia, some Hispanic, a few African plus the been there forever mix of ethnicities that is certain parts of Canada; fun classes with that variety, so grateful my kids had experience with that as well as children and teachers with physical challenges and a wide variety of religious expressions, very different from much of my upbringing in CA and IL.  Only drawback was the moms were rarely fluent in English and were uncomfortable volunteering, which was a shame given the positive experiences we had with those who joined us…me and another mom alternated being room mother.

No doubt location and time has a lot to do with probability of encountering such pushes to be front and center diversity rep at school. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

Since you've missed several of my comments and don't seem aware of my own bio, let me clarify. I'm biracial... I identify most with being mixed as opposed to a singular black or white dichotomy...but value both as experiences and histories that have built my own. I have a white american mother who also hales from rural OR/ID. My father/step-mother are Nigerian. My step-father is Mexican-american. My husband is Peruvian. My immediate family includes people from other ethnic backgrounds as well. I grew up largely out east and then south before landing in the mountainwest for the last several years. (for the record, Calm noted learning from me. She's one of the people on the board I've met in person and talk to regularly outside this message board. Systemic racism is something we've discussed quite a bit).  I'm going to answer some of this backwards.

Quote

All of this wouldn't bother me so much if I saw any other true efforts to reconcile the Church's history on blacks.  The essay is so weak on its condemnation of past racism that most don't even see it in the essay.  President Oak's comment about the church never apologizing is deeply offensive.  The thing that bothers me the most is that all of my family and friends and my wife's living in rural Idaho and Utah and many living in larger cities still believe just as Brad Wilcox.  They are uncomfortable around blacks and still say so many racist things.  I come from a huge LDS family, my wife is a great great great granddaughter of Wilford Woodruff.   Well over half of my current ward still believes that God withheld the priesthood from the blacks for a reason.  I am tired of hearing it when Church leaders could so easily address it.  Did Brother Corbitt try  to address it in this fireside?  He had a great opportunity and it would have made such an impact on the youth of the Church but he didn't.

When the Essay came out, I was in a civil rights class/group at BYU. It's not your average class...it was handpicked students, many of african decent, in a small class, who would learn about black history and then take a trip down south to some of the sites with another group of college students unaffiliated with BYU. The class would then become part of a community of support and learning. So off school, the group of us read the essay together. It was a good moment and a relief for me/many others. I was introduced to racist church theories by my own mother, much to my horror, after sharing something with her I found online that I thought you'd have to be an idiot to believe while a teen. Racism in the church has often taken a personal and painful note. That essay you find inadequate was a step forward...a refreshing one that empowered me and others in my growing line of thought and some of the interactions with other. It wasn't perfect but it was good and in the right direction. I've found that focusing on what I see as missing gets me nowhere but permanently frustrated and hurt. I prefer to focus on what I find good, grow on it, and assume more good will come in time. 

15 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I missed your comment earlier.  I have nothing against Brother Corbitt but I feel strongly he was picked to help Brad solely because of the color of his skin.  Where has he been for the last two years?  If he was so close to Brad, why has he said nothing until now?  I listened to his comments closely and they seemed to be comments assuring us that Brad is really a good guy.  Why would he bring up Brad's years as a young man in Ethiopia?  If you are connected to other black members of the Church, I am sure you have read their view that is different from you own on Brother Corbitt's role in this fireside.  It seems very easy to say well he is part of the young men's presidency and has a right to be there when he has been absent from every single fireside I have found from Brad Wilcox for the last two years.

I feel the same way about Sister Wilcox being there.  I have nothing against her but in my opinion, she was a part of that fireside because she was a woman.  She has never been part of any of Brad's firesides to the youth that I have seen.

Again, I am by no means that cynical about people in general. My preferred stance with people is to believe most of them make sense in their context and are trying to do right, though most often imperfectly....including myself. If I'm not getting something, i'm likely missing something about their context that would make their behavior make sense. That doesn't mean I complete excuse it, but it takes a lot of negative energy out of my sails.

I have no clue where Corbitt was for two years. Considering their calling I'm going to assume in several countries and/or meetings across the world and in away that is largely "divide and conquer" where they're more likely to meet to discuss plans and assignments/pushes. I'm also going to assume that none of them are micro-managing and double checking each other's talks to afford 100% agreement. I'm assuming he's giving the background with Wilcox not to pull of the common trope of "I have black friends" but to re-humanize him. When something like this hits publically people get flattened into a soundbite of uncomfortable mistakes/errors. We don't get a full person and the shock of the statement makes us less apt to see one.  As I mentioned my own mother mentioned several racist tropes. People are complicated. People are not simply one thing. When I assume that I'm bound to be wrong. I have a hard time jumping to those same conclusions because they're extremely flat and assuming the worst out of a situation I wasn't apart of to begin with.

Along with that I don't think the worst of most the general leaders of the church...even the ones I'm not big fans of.  

As for commentary from other black members, I've only seen a few namely for personal health reasons that meant I was late to jump in this. The ones I read, there's things I agree with and things I don't. So what you're getting is more my unadulterated opinion. 

Which brings me to one other thing. Some of your last comments in defense of black people have been extremely uncomfortable for me. I find them frankly offensive and I have a fairly thick skin. I want to name these and explain why. 

15 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

 You seem to have no idea how offensive it is to many black people to have someone like Brother Corbitt held up as an example of blacks.  Brother Corbitt is a black man living pretty much as a white man.  Listening to him talk, he appears to have almost no connection to the larger black community.  This ploy of holding up a black man as an example of  how great an organization, country, etc.  is doing for blacks in one of the major complaints of the black community.  It just shows white privilege that so many whites are completely blind too.  Once again I will share the thoughts of a black member from the Salt Lake Tribune.

This reminded me of a time I was with a (white) roommate that I was griping about something to do with race. She then mentioned "well BD, you are the whitest black person I know" Which noting that I am half white and therefore that sentence made no sense to me, she then continued and said "you know, even for mixed girls." She then listed several features that apparently all black people must have. From certain dress, to black american speech intonations, and finally and most offensively to the fact that I was getting my master's degree. So when someone sits there and tells me that a black man raised largely in inner city Philly, raised in the Nation of Islam before becoming a christian and then LDS, whose siblings have a a variety of differing experiences as black people, who some of his children were in said civil rights group and are active in black LDS circles, and that he lived around same said area for much of his life gets reduced as having almost "no connection to the larger black community" and therefore not black enough because of one talk in one circumstance, I find that highly offensive. It feels like I'm sitting in front of my white roommate who didn't realize she just walked into a racist trope.  

You as a white person cannot sit and play judge and jury of a person's true blackness. It's not going to go over well. Don't do it. Pardon my east coast bluntness but again, don't f-ing go there. Don't pit black voices who disagree with Corbit's decisions against others who are less in arms about this and act like the voices that most agree are the epitomy of true blackness. Don't pretend the black community is a monolith of thought on how to confront racism and move forward as a people both in society and in the church. Yes, there's things we mostly agree with in principle (Wilcox was wrong and should have listened more carefully to individual students/incorporated black voices into his thoughts before it got to this point in the first place). But we're likely to disagree about things in practice based on generation, background, personal experience, etc. I've watched this happen in real time more than once in large/small groups of black LDS members.  

 

What I've shared here has been my opinion as a woman who has place in the black community, has spoken up and participated in forums discussing racial issues multiple times in differing venues, who actively studied black history and black LDS history not simply for a study but to better understand my own personal experiences, who will have to deal with the consequences of our church history and church present directly for the foreseeable future, and who has said family that still have major blindspots and racist ideas circulating. I don't give these lightly, I'm not blithely following my white privilege or excusing/ignoring racism. I give them in context of experience and an attitude that works to be compassionate first in my judgments and with optimism built on the changes I've had for myself and seen in the church. But I still do so as a POC. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/14/2022 at 9:54 AM, Navidad said:

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.

A scriptural explanation of the LDS concept of Priesthood power and authority was provided. You observed that “virtually all” LDS Priesthood holders betray that creed when they say they are the only authorized priesthood in the world. This somehow puts them on a par with prideful 1950s Fundamentalist preachers. How egregious is this? “Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power!” 

The restoration of Priesthood authority is fundamental in the history and doctrine of the LDS Church, so one might expect to hear of it often, perhaps even in the many LDS meetings and conferences you have attended or in which you have spoken. It must have been uncomfortable to be in those places. Since it has been the testimony of every faithful Priesthood holder since 1830, one could conclude that none of them has ever been nor is now fit to hold priesthood authority -  hubris and pride being contrary to their own scriptural parameters of sacred authority. They are not therefore fit to hold power. 

Sincere questions:

How does testifying of the Restoration violate the Christian ideals taught in D&C 121:29-46?

Should Latter-day Saints abandon the claims of the Restoration?

If not all, then which LDS Priesthood holders have no hubris?

 

Quote

What I can't figure out is that virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about it needs to remind the listeners that it is the only authorized priesthood in the world. That need to remind everyone is the very opposite of the qualities noted in the passage you quoted. To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power! They remind me too much of 1950's Fundamentalist pastors and leaders, as does Brad Wilcox to bring this back to the subject. Those who truly are comfortable in their power don't need to talk about it with such obvious pride! I think it is not that I misunderstand the concept; I dislike its manifestation.

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Wilcox was wrong and should have listened more carefully to individual students/incorporated black voices into his thoughts before it got to this point in the first place)

Would you please explain from your vantage point where Bro Wilcox erred in his talk and what he should have learned from his students?

Edited February 15, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Since you've missed several of my comments and don't seem aware of my own bio, let me clarify. I'm biracial... I identify most with being mixed as opposed to a singular black or white dichotomy...but value both as experiences and histories that have built my own. I have a white american mother who also hales from rural OR/ID. My father/step-mother are Nigerian. My step-father is Mexican-american. My husband is Peruvian. My immediate family includes people from other ethnic backgrounds as well. I grew up largely out east and then south before landing in the mountainwest for the last several years. (for the record, Calm noted learning from me. She's one of the people on the board I've met in person and talk to regularly outside this message board. Systemic racism is something we've discussed quite a bit).  I'm going to answer some of this backwards.

When the Essay came out, I was in a civil rights class/group at BYU. It's not your average class...it was handpicked students, many of african decent, in a small class, who would learn about black history and then take a trip down south to some of the sites with another group of college students unaffiliated with BYU. The class would then become part of a community of support and learning. So off school, the group of us read the essay together. It was a good moment and a relief for me/many others. I was introduced to racist church theories by my own mother, much to my horror, after sharing something with her I found online that I thought you'd have to be an idiot to believe while a teen. Racism in the church has often taken a personal and painful note. That essay you find inadequate was a step forward...a refreshing one that empowered me and others in my growing line of thought and some of the interactions with other. It wasn't perfect but it was good and in the right direction. I've found that focusing on what I see as missing gets me nowhere but permanently frustrated and hurt. I prefer to focus on what I find good, grow on it, and assume more good will come in time. 

Again, I am by no means that cynical about people in general. My preferred stance with people is to believe most of them make sense in their context and are trying to do right, though most often imperfectly....including myself. If I'm not getting something, i'm likely missing something about their context that would make their behavior make sense. That doesn't mean I complete excuse it, but it takes a lot of negative energy out of my sails.

I have no clue where Corbitt was for two years. Considering their calling I'm going to assume in several countries and/or meetings across the world and in away that is largely "divide and conquer" where they're more likely to meet to discuss plans and assignments/pushes. I'm also going to assume that none of them are micro-managing and double checking each other's talks to afford 100% agreement. I'm assuming he's giving the background with Wilcox not to pull of the common trope of "I have black friends" but to re-humanize him. When something like this hits publically people get flattened into a soundbite of uncomfortable mistakes/errors. We don't get a full person and the shock of the statement makes us less apt to see one.  As I mentioned my own mother mentioned several racist tropes. People are complicated. People are not simply one thing. When I assume that I'm bound to be wrong. I have a hard time jumping to those same conclusions because they're extremely flat and assuming the worst out of a situation I wasn't apart of to begin with.

Along with that I don't think the worst of most the general leaders of the church...even the ones I'm not big fans of.  

As for commentary from other black members, I've only seen a few namely for personal health reasons that meant I was late to jump in this. The ones I read, there's things I agree with and things I don't. So what you're getting is more my unadulterated opinion. 

Which brings me to one other thing. Some of your last comments in defense of black people have been extremely uncomfortable for me. I find them frankly offensive and I have a fairly thick skin. I want to name these and explain why. 

This reminded me of a time I was with a (white) roommate that I was griping about something to do with race. She then mentioned "well BD, you are the whitest black person I know" Which noting that I am half white and therefore that sentence made no sense to me, she then continued and said "you know, even for mixed girls." She then listed several features that apparently all black people must have. From certain dress, to black american speech intonations, and finally and most offensively to the fact that I was getting my master's degree. So when someone sits there and tells me that a black man raised largely in inner city Philly, raised in the Nation of Islam before becoming a christian and then LDS, whose siblings have a a variety of differing experiences as black people, who some of his children were in said civil rights group and are active in black LDS circles, and that he lived around same said area for much of his life gets reduced as having almost "no connection to the larger black community" and therefore not black enough because of one talk in one circumstance, I find that highly offensive. It feels like I'm sitting in front of my white roommate who didn't realize she just walked into a racist trope.  

You as a white person cannot sit and play judge and jury of a person's true blackness. It's not going to go over well. Don't do it. Pardon my east coast bluntness but again, don't f-ing go there. Don't pit black voices who disagree with Corbit's decisions against others who are less in arms about this and act like the voices that most agree are the epitomy of true blackness. Don't pretend the black community is a monolith of thought on how to confront racism and move forward as a people both in society and in the church. Yes, there's things we mostly agree with in principle (Wilcox was wrong and should have listened more carefully to individual students/incorporated black voices into his thoughts before it got to this point in the first place). But we're likely to disagree about things in practice based on generation, background, personal experience, etc. I've watched this happen in real time more than once in large/small groups of black LDS members.  

 

What I've shared here has been my opinion as a woman who has place in the black community, has spoken up and participated in forums discussing racial issues multiple times in differing venues, who actively studied black history and black LDS history not simply for a study but to better understand my own personal experiences, who will have to deal with the consequences of our church history and church present directly for the foreseeable future, and who has said family that still have major blindspots and racist ideas circulating. I don't give these lightly, I'm not blithely following my white privilege or excusing/ignoring racism. I give them in context of experience and an attitude that works to be compassionate first in my judgments and with optimism built on the changes I've had for myself and seen in the church. But I still do so as a POC. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Thanks for your response.  I think our personal experiences strongly color our views.  I am the parent of a gay son who has been basically cut off from participating in church because I dared to point out that the Church's current stance and teachings about queer people is destroying lives.  I can attend, pay tithing, go to the temple and serve as a ministering brother but I was released from all my callings and have never been asked to speak or teach in 9 years.  I have been accused of being an apostate by Church leaders for mentioning in priesthood that the doctrine of the Church in the past was that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood until the millennium.  I was accused of apostasy by my bishop for expressing to him that the November 15th policy really hurt my family.  I have several black friends who have experienced the same cutting off for expressing disappointment with the continued racism in the Church.  I have watched as the children of one of my black friends have totally rejected the Church because of the treatment and teachings they were exposed too.  I worry about this black friend because he keeps taking hits like Brad Wilcox and just doesn't know what to do.  He tries to take the same path as you but it really isn't working for his family.  I work every day almost with parents of queer children who are trying to hang on to their testimonies but keep getting beat down by the things taught by local and general leaders in the Church.  They have tried so hard in most cases to take your path of giving folks the benefit of the doubt.  They just keep getting kicked.  These parents have hoped that general authorities with queer children would understand their pain only to have those same leaders basically slap them in the face.  I have a number of black friends with similar experiences in the Church.  One black man who is a close friend is also gay.  He keeps that hidden from his church leaders partly because he is tired of being asked to give talks or sing in choirs and finding out it is mainly because he is black.  I have seen this Church destroy far to many lives in a way that is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand it.  I believe it is because members of the Church are conditioned not to complain, to never question authority and never discuss the faults of leaders.  Brad Wilcox is a perfect example of where no one speaking up has got us as a Church.  Go view David Archuleta's post to see what the Church is currently doing to queer people.  What we are doing related to many things in this Church currently is not Christlike. I don't believe for minute that God will stop leaders from leading us astray.  That is another falsehood taught to members.  There is no scripture, history or revelation that supports that statement.  The scriptures are actually quite clear to the contrary.  So yes I take strong positions because my experience tells me that currently Church leader's first priority is to protect the Church even if it means destroying the lives of some members.  In my opinion, that was Brother Corbitt's number 1 goal, protect the Church.