Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[mfbukowski]

error

[amo]

58 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Brad Wilcox offered a second apology on Sunday February 13, 2022.  I find it hard to truly believe Bro. Wilcox has any idea of how offensive his words have been. He managed to degrade and offend women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc.  Where has YM president Lund been while Bro. Wilcox has been giving this talk over the years. I do not have confidence in this General YM Presidency.

Could you please take the time to explain "HOW" Bro. Wilcox has degraded and offended "women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc...."?

 

Thank you.

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Rankism.  Hmmm. That describes how this response comes across to me.

I hear testimonies of Christ all the time. Especially on Fast Sunday.

Suggesting that the Church abandon the Restoration is in effect saying it should cease to exist. Surely with your experience you know that to be the case.

Oversee an ordinance? What does that mean? 

Bro Call and his wife never testified of the Restoration?

 

I don't think that my position that Christian faiths are all equal in the sight of God and that Christ will judge all humanity who have lived in all times based on His perfect righteousness and mercy is rankism. But obviously you can parse my response as you think best. I would love to hear more though!

I have much confidence and faith in the LDS Church. I am not suggesting it abandon its belief in itself as a restorational church. Sorry if I came across that way. In addition to the LDS Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the several Churches of Christ, the various Apostolic churches, most all the Anabaptist groups, including my own believe they are restorational as well. They make a great distinction between being restorational and reformational. That is why many don't claim the Protestant mantle. My understanding is the LDS church has, as one of its truth claims that it is the only true restorational church. Am I wrong? That sets it apart. I have confidence that if the LDS church abandoned the "only" part it would continue to exist and prosper from that change.

For example, folks here don't talk about it much, but I don't believe as a student of LDS history that anyone can deny that the LDS church has greatly modified its doctrine of the Total Apostasy from the mid-19th century to today. It seems evident that the Total Apostasy of James Talmage and earlier apostles is now either the great or partial apostasy, depending on who is writing. Studies into Robert Mason and his vision, the spiritual mentor of Wilford Woodruff had a big impact on the beginnings of that change. I haven't heard anyone in recent years talk of a Total Apostasy, but that the Holy Spirit in a limited way led folks prior to 1829 or 30 - kind of what the church now teaches about people like me - non-members who may have the occasional ministry of the Holy Spirit beyond the basic Light of Christ, but not the full gift. That has been a quiet but significant change that is pretty significant. To my knowledge (limited as it is) it hasn't hurt the church at all. Belief that an alternative position on the uniqueness and onlyness of the LDS restoration would cause the church to cease to exist seems extreme to me. Of course, I know that it doesn't matter how it seems to me. Just an observation.

I listen very very carefully on Fast Sundays for testimonies of Christ and/or of the church. I stand by my belief that testimonies in that the church is true or the only true . . . are more common than those about Christ. Of course I have an N of one. So I shouldn't generalize from that. That is why I clarified in my earlier message to which you responded that I was speaking from my own experience.  I do believe however that is changing. Studies by the Dr. Shepherd twins of the content analysis of general conference talks are encouraging in that they reveal a much greater emphasis on Christ in the latest thirty year period of talks that they studied than in earlier thirty year periods. I found their analysis fascinating and very informative on the direction of the church.

Overseeing an ordinance is simply a different way of saying perform or conduct an ordinance (baptism, marriage, sacrament, feet-washing - in my tradition, etc). It was Spencer Kimball in his book written as an apostle, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" who stated that all non-LDS priests performing ordinances such as baptism were committing blasphemy. That left an indelible impression on me when I began studying LDS doctrine. I once had a long talk about it with a manager at the downtown SLC Deseret store. I think she indicated they were no longer selling or printing that book. I forget which.

Whether I ever heard it or not directly from him, I am sure that Brother Call had a total commitment to the restoration as taught by the LDS church. If I erred in using his name, I apologize. He had a big impact on my wife and I and I treasure his memory. His son is our Stake President and his son-in-law was our bishop most of our time in the ward. By mentioning him by name, I honor his memory and impact on our lives, nothing else. I want to make that very clear.

I hope that clarifies things and for the most part answers your questions. Thank you for interacting with my previous answer. I appreciate that very much.

[2BizE]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

How do you know what he feels?

99% of what members believe is entirely based on feelings.  I have a feeling just like many members have a feeling Joseph was a prophet.  
Also, in his apologies, he only briefly touched on racism and the priesthood, but there was so much more that was condescending that he did address.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree. We should never judge others and call them "wrong" while we are of course implying we are "right" because golly gee, that would be the sin of "rankism".

Worse yet is when we don't even know we are doing it, by repremanding others ourselves.   How ridiculous would that be to not know yourself well enough to see that?

But what if God tells you personally that your church is true?  And the only one that really gets these issues, and you try to tell others who have no testimony that that is the case?

So it seems to me that this entire concept is incoherent.  Even bringing it up is a self- contradiction.

"It's wrong to think you are better than others" as a reprimand ALWAYS MUST imply that the speaker herself thinks she herself is better than others simply by making the reprimand.

I see absolutely nothing wrong thinking one knows what is true and tries to tell others who don't know.  Let them make their own decisions.

Ok Fair enough. I didn't expect you to endorse my conclusions. I will only say that I am a fan of the 1950s Johari window. It is based and designed on the concept that we all have blind spots. Many of us do not see (hence the term blind spot) how we come across to others. Obviously you and I, along with everyone else have our own blind spots. You have my permission to point out mine to me. In so many ways we don't know ourselves well - especially in our relationships with others. Again, I don't question that the LDS church is true. You heard that from me five years ago! I never said otherwise. The only one? Nope. Not something I can grasp. I also disagree that someone trying to help another see how they come across assumes that person believes he or she is better than the other. If that were true, every shrink, therapist, bishop, spouse, and friend in the world would be out of business. As a bishop did you never counsel anyone? Did you think yourself better than others by offering that counsel? Your last sentence is the most insightful- you sound like a therapist! Thanks for interacting with my comments. You mentioned in jest the other day that you and I need marriage counseling. Do you think marriage counselors think themselves better that those they are counseling? If as you indicated I said "its wrong to think you are better than others," why is that not loving counsel instead of a reprimand? Can we not all learn from each other? Adult to adult? Spiritual equal to Spiritual equal? Frenemy to frenemy? Hot dog to hot dog?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"It's wrong to think you are better than others" as a reprimand ALWAYS MUST imply that the speaker herself thinks she herself is better than others simply by making the reprimand.

Beautifully deconstructed. Thank you.

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

For example, folks here don't talk about it much, but I don't believe as a student of LDS history that anyone can deny that the LDS church has greatly modified its doctrine of the Total Apostasy from the mid-19th century to today. It seems evident that the Total Apostasy of James Talmage and earlier apostles is now either the great or partial apostasy, depending on who is writing. Studies into Robert Mason and his vision, the spiritual mentor of Wilford Woodruff had a big impact on the beginnings of that change. I haven't heard anyone in recent years talk of a Total Apostasy, but that the Holy Spirit in a limited way led folks prior to 1829 or 30 - kind of what the church now teaches about people like me - non-members who may have the occasional ministry of the Holy Spirit beyond the basic Light of Christ, but not the full gift. That has been a quiet but significant change that is pretty significant. To my knowledge (limited as it is) it hasn't hurt the church at all. Belief that an alternative position on the uniqueness and onlyness of the LDS restoration would cause the church to cease to exist seems extreme to me. Of course, I know that it doesn't matter how it seems to me. Just an observation.

I think this may come from a misunderstanding of what we believe is the apostasy, or may be based on the teachings by some members that misunderstand the nature of the apostasy.  If I were to say that there was a "total apostasy", I would be referring to the priesthood keys and the apostolic leadership and direction in Christ's church, and not that there was a total loss of all truth or that nobody was ever led by the Holy Spirit during the period of apostasy.  I'm not aware of any time when the church has ever taught such a thing, including in the book by Elder Talmage (The Great Apostasy).  Elder Talmage speaks of an "extinction of the primitive Church", but he is referring to the Church as an institution that "lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only." (The Great Apostasy, preface).  And even Joseph Smith affirmed there was truth to be found in other Christian faiths, and that we are to seek out those truths wherever they can be gathered up (History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844]).   And even the Book of Mormon describes the Spirit of God working upon many individuals during the period we define as "the apostasy" (i.e. 1 Nephi 13:12-16). 

I suspect that some of the wrong ideas about a "total apostasy" developed in the minds of the membership due to conflicts with those outside the church in the early days.  But I don't think the church has modified its doctrine in this regard, but rather there has been a greater awareness of what our doctrine really is on this topic, all the way back to the beginning. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't think that my position that Christian faiths are all equal in the sight of God and that Christ will judge all humanity who have lived in all times based on His perfect righteousness and mercy is rankism. But obviously you can parse my response as you think best. I would love to hear more though!

Do you believe that the Christian faith is better than Buddhism and Atheism?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't think that my position that Christian faiths are all equal in the sight of God and that Christ will judge all humanity who have lived in all times based on His perfect righteousness and mercy is rankism. But obviously you can parse my response as you think best. I would love to hear more though!

There you go again!

You make a false analogy, implying that we do not believe that all will not be judged in mercy.

Lie.

We are virtually universalist. Everybody gets a second or third or 40th chance EVEN AFTER DEATH AND THEY HAVE SEEN THE AFTERLIFE to make a clear decision which path is right, and even our "hell", it is said, people would commit suicide to get there, if they could see it.

Then comes the passive aggressive "BUT..." which then implies we must "parse your response" dishonestly to misrepresent your position.

And now you will point out how much you are a victim in all this.

It's getting old. Maybe it's time to scatter some tables.

You constantly misrepresent our position, but you are always the perfect victim.

You still want to hear more?

Edited February 16, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even our "hell", it is said, people would commit suicide to get there, if they could see it.

I don't believe this particular piece of folklore since I think it's intended to refer to the Telestial Kingdom, which is part of heaven, not hell, but our understanding of hell remains that, in the first instance, it's temporary, providing people who are unwilling to repent a 'try before you buy' opportunity to still change their minds. In the end, the only people who won't be redeemed and cleansed through the shed blood of Christ are those who, having experienced the awful separation from God, still prefer it.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Beautifully deconstructed. Thank you.

Thanks, but of course, that part will not be debated, because the subject has already changed. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't believe this particular piece of folklore since I think it's intended to refer to the Telestial Kingdom, which is part of heaven, not hell, but our understanding of hell remains that, in the first instance, it's temporary, providing people who are unwilling to repent a 'try before you buy opportunity' to still change their minds. In the end, the only people who won't be redeemed and cleansed through the shed blood of Christ are those who, having experienced the awful separation from God, still prefer it.

Not the way I see it. You said:

"In the end, the only people who won't be redeemed and cleansed through the shed blood of Christ are those who, having experienced the awful separation from God, still prefer it."

How I see it, we've got spirit prison and then after the judgement it's either the telestial kingdom or outer darkness, and there are very very few, like 50 souls out of like a trillion, at max who "make it" to outer darkness.  

But that's all a question about mechanics that we really don't know much about.

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not the way I see it.

Quoting from chapter 41 of Gospel Principles:

Quote

Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.

 

[Vanguard]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom.

I think that's assumes we know what it means to 'reject the gospel'. Did someone who accepted the missionaries in for one visit only to decline further appointments reject the gospel?

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I think that's assumes we know what it means to 'reject the gospel'. Did someone who accepted the missionaries in for one visit only to decline further appointments reject the gospel?

Not in my opinion. Rejection requires knowledge; otherwise, any penalty for such rejection is unjust. Our God is a God of infinite mercy. He's in the business of saving, not condemning: 'For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved'.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church has policies against that.

Testimonies from children are fine, but not if they are "put on the stand" and someone whispers in their ear etc. or if they are reciting something previously memorized.   Not to mention it is absurd- little children could not possibly understand what they are saying on such issues.

I agree with everything you said, but it happens here. I have seen it first hand.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe that the Christian faith is better than Buddhism and Atheism?

You will have to define what you mean as better for me before I can answer that. Better to insure eternal life? More in line with the Bible? Better in the sense of truer? Not trying to be difficult . . . I just can't answer until I know what you mean by "better."

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There you go again!

You make a false analogy, implying that we do not believe that all will not be judged in mercy.

Lie.

We are virtually universalist. Everybody gets a second or third or 40th chance EVEN AFTER DEATH AND THEY HAVE SEEN THE AFTERLIFE to make a clear decision which path is right, and even our "hell", it is said, people would commit suicide to get there, if they could see it.

Then comes the passive aggressive "BUT..." which then implies we must "parse your response" dishonestly to misrepresent your position.

And now you will point out how much you are a victim in all this.

It's getting old. Maybe it's time to scatter some tables.

You constantly misrepresent our position, but you are always the perfect victim.

You still want to hear more?

Sure I would love hear more about why I make you so angry? Which of your positions did I misrepresent in the post to which you are responding? I never implied anything about your beliefs. I shared with you my beliefs about judgment and mercy. In fact in the statement you are quoting I stated firmly that I believe all Christian faiths are the same in God's eyes. If I was implying anything it is that I view the LDS faith as equally Christian as mine. Is that what makes you so mad, that I simply don't believe in LDS exceptionalism, that you faith is more valid than mine?  Parsing to me is interpreting. Surely you agree that you interpret my statements through your own lenses, do you not? I am no victim. I am here of my own will. I own that.

Scatter tables? Christ in the temple? So, I am the money changers and you are Christ - about to scatter some tables? Please tell me more about that.

Tell me which of your beliefs I misrepresented? Apostasy? Your view of yourself as a restorational church? I also shared in that post my own lived experience. How could I misrepresent that? I shared the Shepherd's research. I thought that was a positive. Was it not? I am happy to hear more from you, especially about how and why I trigger you so. Something in my posts really bothers you. Help me understand what that is. I will be grateful.

[Navidad]

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that? Should he? Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians? What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world? Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along? I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that? Should he? Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians? What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world? Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along? I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

It was offensive to so many members, no doubt about it. When I was an active believer I hope I would have been offended. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that? Should he? Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians? What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world? Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along? I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

Are cargo cults "playing" at worship?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/1959-cargo-cults-melanesia/

What if their belief is sincere? Improvised airstrips, barracks, offices, coconut-bamboo-tin-can-equipment, passing ritual papers back and forth in the makeshift offices, military drill, ritual USA painted on their chests, etc. All in the belief that the messianic John Frum will return and give them the white man's cargo. 

Is their belief and ritual on a par with Christianity? Are they playing at worship, or is it real worship in its own right? 

[Rain]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that?

No idea. I don't know him.

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Should he?

Part of me wants to say yes, absolutely.  Part of me thinks there is a whole lot to apologize for and for him to learn so am I going to keep insisting he apologizes till he hits every point.

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians?

Not that I've seen, though I've seen some similar things from individuals and it has ticked me off.

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world?

Doctrinal position on what?

Of whether other churches are pretending?  There is nothing doctrinal about that,  but it's not a question about doctrine, but about the sincerity of people.  Everything I've seen,  especially when it comes to speaking about charity in other churches has been positive, but that's where I have most of my exposure with other charities so maybe I just see that more.

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along?

Others? Like us here who mostly didn't like what he had to say even if we like him in other ways?

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

That part was not ignored. Seriously. 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sure I would love hear more about why I make you so angry? Which of your positions did I misrepresent in the post to which you are responding? I never implied anything about your beliefs. I shared with you my beliefs about judgment and mercy. In fact in the statement you are quoting I stated firmly that I believe all Christian faiths are the same in God's eyes. If I was implying anything it is that I view the LDS faith as equally Christian as mine. Is that what makes you so mad, that I simply don't believe in LDS exceptionalism, that you faith is more valid than mine?  Parsing to me is interpreting. Surely you agree that you interpret my statements through your own lenses, do you not? I am no victim. I am here of my own will. I own that.

Scatter tables? Christ in the temple? So, I am the money changers and you are Christ - about to scatter some tables? Please tell me more about that.

Tell me which of your beliefs I misrepresented? Apostasy? Your view of yourself as a restorational church? I also shared in that post my own lived experience. How could I misrepresent that? I shared the Shepherd's research. I thought that was a positive. Was it not? I am happy to hear more from you, especially about how and why I trigger you so. Something in my posts really bothers you. Help me understand what that is. I will be grateful.

Angry? I am not angry, and you still use emotional, manipulative tactics to avoid the central point of disagreement

You made a false accusation, implying that we believe that all will not be judged in mercy, but according to whether or not people were or were not LDS, and you use emotional arguments to try to refute what it appears you THINK we believe, yet we never HAVE believed. The whole reason we build temples and do genealogy is to teach those who have already passed, and that virtually all who hear the message will accept it, when it's truth is demonstrated by all that is obvious in the spirit world all around them

You still have not addressed that simple point, but want to discuss why I am supposedly angry.

When history repeats itself inevitably you will threaten to leave the board because you are so persecuted by we LDS who sin by practicing "rankism".

It's been the same for 5 years. For five years people tell you why you are wrong about that, and you are still ignoring what is said, and respond by changing the subject to how you are being persecuted and how everyone in your ward loves you.  Wonderful, I am genuinely happy about that!

LDS folks flip out when they think one is being "mean" to an "investigator" by challenging their views.  You just NEVER do it.

But by now, I don't think that is the case here.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that? Should he? Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians? What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world? Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along? I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

After all  the interfaith work Brad Wilcox has done, I was surprised at these remarks.  It’s not the kind of thing I would expect Brad Wilcox to say about other faiths. 
 

Who is this guy and what has he done with the real Brad Wilcox?

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Regarding the original content of this thread. We haven't talked too much in the 34 pages about his comments that non-LDS Christians simply play church. Does anyone here think he will ever apologize for that? Should he? Does it accurately portray the position of the church about non-LDS Christians? What is the no kidding real doctrinal position of the church when it comes to the rest of the Christian world? Did Brad Wilcox simply have the courage to state it when so many others seem to be trying to just get along? I found this portion of his talk especially offensive. Will this portion of his talk simply be ignored because non-members are well . . . simply non-members? Thanks for your input.

Official LDS doctrine is that no other churches have priesthood authority and the LDS church is the only church where Jesus Christ organized it through a prophet, Joseph Smith, and Jesus stands at the head of the Church.  That is why it is called the Church of Jesus Christ.  All other churches are considered organized and headed by men/women with no direct priesthood authority that Jesus Christ recognizes as having authority to bind in heaven.