Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

We had a young lady, maybe 7 when she started.  She always gave quite good messages with her testimony.  Looked forward to her sharing.  
 

The ones that go up on their own tend to take it seriously and do more than the rote stuff in my wards.

We've had two (from different families, one has been in YMs for a while so he's older now) that used to come up every sunday and they would have a specific topic they wanted to testify about (like the scriptures, or faith etc.) and they would share an experience with that principle that they had had that week and why they wanted to bear their testimony of it.  They did better than some adults.

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think Jana was spot on.  She summed it up Wilcox's cringeworthy behavior very accurately.

Candidly, I pretty much agree with you.  

I remember her October 2020 eulogizing of Tom Kimball.  She somehow found it within herself, after having found out what he had done, to extend a substantial measure of understanding and empathy to him and his memory (alongside criticism).  She was able to acknowledge the various good things he had done (alongside acknowledging his errors against others).  To wax philosophical with questions like "Do we ever truly know people?" and make compassionate and empathetic references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again."

No such corollary treatment for Brad Wilcox.  

Back then Robert Boylan, rather aptly I think, observed on Twitter that she was "trying to downplay TK's activities."  She responded with "No, you have misunderstood.  I am absolutely not excusing his behavior."  Robert then responded: "I said downplaying, not excusing.  If this was a conservative politician or the like, you would have rightly ripped into him.  But a liberal ex-Mo, well, walk on eggshells..."

We have all been quite troubled and disappointed by Bro. Wilcox's comments.  But perhaps he is as deserving of some of that grace Jana was able to find for Tom Kimball.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I pretty much agree with you.  

I remember her October 2020 eulogizing of Tom Kimball.  She somehow found it within herself, after having found out what he had done, to extend a substantial measure of understanding and empathy to him and his memory (alongside criticism).  She was able to acknowledge the various good things he had done (alongside acknowledging his errors against others).  To wax philosophical with questions like "Do we ever truly know people?" and make compassionate and empathetics references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again."

No such corollary treatment for Brad Wilcox.  

Back then Robert Boylan, rather aptly I think, observed on Twitter that she was "trying to downplay TK's activities."  She responded with "No, you have misunderstood.  I am absolutely not excusing his behavior."  Robert then responded: "I said downplaying, not excusing.  If this was a conservative politician or the like, you would have rightly ripped into him.  But a liberal ex-Mo, well, walk on eggshells..."

We have all been quite troubled and disappointed by Bro. Wilcox's comments.  But perhaps he is as deserving of some of that grace Jana was able to find for Tom Kimball.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we are always more lenient and gracious with the people who have the same biases that we do.  And it's hard to pass up opportunities to feel justified when someone in an organization you don't like anymore behaves badly.

We all have our favorite double standards.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No such corollary treatment for Brad Wilcox.

To be fair it sounds like Tom* was a personal friend who just died. So not exactly analogous situations. 

*Thanks BlueDreams!

Edited February 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BlueDreams]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To be fair it sounds like Brad was a personal friend who just died. So not exactly analogous situations. 

Psst…it’s Tom…;) 

 

i think it’s fair and still not fair. It’s easier to keep a sense of complexity to people when we know them more. It’s harder when they are or feel more distant to us as people. Personally though, that usually makes me a little more cautious when pointing at another super critically. I don’t know them, I don’t know their context. All I have is a semblance of context…which is usually not enough. 
 

with luv, 

BD

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Psst…it’s Tom…;) 
 

Whoops! 😬

 

 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

i think it’s fair and still not fair.
 

Well sure. And to be fair what *Tom did was way way worse. But again she was eulogizing a friend. Was she going to ask for an extra apology?

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It’s easier to keep a sense of complexity to people when we know them more. It’s harder when they are or feel more distant to us as people. Personally though, that usually makes me a little more cautious when pointing at another super critically. I don’t know them, I don’t know their context. All I have is a semblance of context…which is usually not enough. 
 

with luv, 

BD

I think this is important to remember and easy to forget online. Everyone is a person. That said we will often hear things we need to hear - brutally honest things that our friends won’t say - from strangers. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Whoops! 😬

 

 

Well sure. And to be fair what *Tom did was way way worse. But again she was eulogizing a friend. Was she going to ask for an extra apology?

I think this is important to remember and easy to forget online. Everyone is a person. That said we will often hear things we need to hear - brutally honest things that our friends won’t say - from strangers. 

I dunno. There’s this part of me that’s extremely skeptical of brutal honesty. Honest and direct, sure. But brutal? I keep having flash of barely connected thoughts that I’ll lay out here because why not?

i picture my therapy sessions. My clients know I’m blunt…but I’ve never been blunt to the point of attacking. They know I know their story, their ins and outs and care for them as is appropriate. The ones where I’m too blunt too fast without real rapport are the most risky to do this with.

Then i picture this rando book I’m reading about NDE’s from a skeptic/research orientation. The collected stories generally  point to similar experiences of profound love and peace…even when they’re having reviews of their life and being confronted by their errors. 

Snd specific to Tom i think of the sacred experience of having to forgive my own child molesting grandfather when he died on my mission. 

thinking with this line of focusing on wilcox and people’s reactions to him. His transgression is honestly not that big. Out of ones sin list, i’m putting this somewhere on low-medium on my things needing some repentance/forgiveness (particularly when comparing to things like what Tom did). But the condemnation is pretty big. And I think the random thoughts have me wondering: is brutal honesty or condemnation really getting us anywhere? What does it do to us to get this angry over this…is it really healthy? 
 

i just find myself skeptical on the brutal part, I guess. (Not that i want anyone to be excused in their sins either) 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think we are always more lenient and gracious with the people who have the same biases that we do.  And it's hard to pass up opportunities to feel justified when someone in an organization you don't like anymore behaves badly.

Jana views the Church as "an organization {she doesn't} like anymore"?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We all have our favorite double standards.

I dunno.  Nobody here seems to be defending Brad Wilcox's comments, even though we have common affection for the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I dunno. There’s this part of me that’s extremely skeptical of brutal honesty. Honest and direct, sure. But brutal? I keep having flash of barely connected thoughts that I’ll lay out here because why not?

i picture my therapy sessions. My clients know I’m blunt…but I’ve never been blunt to the point of attacking. They know I know their story, their ins and outs and care for them as is appropriate. The ones where I’m too blunt too fast without real rapport are the most risky to do this with.

Then i picture this rando book I’m reading about NDE’s from a skeptic/research orientation. The collected stories generally  point to similar experiences of profound love and peace…even when they’re having reviews of their life and being confronted by their errors. 

Snd specific to Tom i think of the sacred experience of having to forgive my own child molesting grandfather when he died on my mission. 

thinking with this line of focusing on wilcox and people’s reactions to him. His transgression is honestly not that big. Out of ones sin list, i’m putting this somewhere on low-medium on my things needing some repentance/forgiveness (particularly when comparing to things like what Tom did). But the condemnation is pretty big. And I think the random thoughts have me wondering: is brutal honesty or condemnation really getting us anywhere? What does it do to us to get this angry over this…is it really healthy? 
 

i just find myself skeptical on the brutal part, I guess. (Not that i want anyone to be excused in their sins either) 
 

with luv, 

BD 

This is a more than fair critique. I regret my word choice. Blunt honesty is more appropriate. And blunt honesty is what Wilcox needed (and got) after his first apology. But yes as far as the sun total of bad things in the universe that include child abuse, his “sin” doesn’t rise very far. On the other hand, I do think in this day and age his views show an extreme amount of insularity (if that’s a word) and not a good look for the organization he represents. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

i think it’s fair and still not fair. It’s easier to keep a sense of complexity to people when we know them more.

I agree.  But knowing that sort of keeps us on the hook.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It’s harder when they are or feel more distant to us as people. Personally though, that usually makes me a little more cautious when pointing at another super critically.  I don’t know them, I don’t know their context. All I have is a semblance of context…which is usually not enough. 

That's fair.  Can people like Jana apply precepts like "Do we ever truly know people" and make compassionate and empathetics references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again" as pertaining to Brad Wilcox?  It appears . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well sure. And to be fair what *Tom did was way way worse. But again she was eulogizing a friend. Was she going to ask for an extra apology?

I would hope that she could extend the same measure of grace and magnanimity to Brad Wilcox.  And yet, she didn't.  And I suspect she won't.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think this is important to remember and easy to forget online. Everyone is a person.

Yes, everyone.  Including historical figures.  Like, say, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Thanks,

-Smac  

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can people like Jana apply precepts like "Do we ever truly know people" and make compassionate and empathetics references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again" as pertaining to Brad Wilcox?  It appears . . . not.

She had different purposes…for Brother Wilcox she wants to push for change, letting him off the hook in her view would be counterproductive I am thinking. With Kimball, her purpose was to soothe her own and other souls, not Kimball’s. He was past changing on account of any words she wrote. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Jana views the Church as "an organization {she doesn't} like anymore"?

I dunno.  Nobody here seems to be defending Brad Wilcox's comments, even though we have common affection for the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Brad's comments had cringe all over them, and just plain crossed the line on so many topics and levels. But if I'm comparing...Tom's is far far worse, because he took innocence away from individuals. And changed their dynamic internally. The comments from Brad may cause harm in certain ways though, not sure.  

Edited February 17, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Brad's comments had cringe all over them, and just plain crossed the line on so many topics and levels.

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But if I'm comparing...Tom's is far far worse, because he took innocence away from individuals.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, either.

The point I am raising is not a comparison of the respective behaviors of these two people, but rather a comparison of the reactions to the behaviors of these two people.

Somehow, a person like Jana Riess can express some grace and magnimity for a person she knows who she understands to be an inveterate child abuser, but cannot do the same for a person she likely does not know, but whose misconduct is far less.

So whence the differentiation?  Is this differentiation fair?  Should Kimball be treated with more condemnation and less grace?  Or should Wilcox be treated with less condemnation and more grace?

Food for though, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, either.

The point I am raising is not a comparison of the respective behaviors of these two people, but rather a comparison of the reactions to the behaviors of these two people.

Somehow, a person like Jana Riess can express some grace and magnimity for a person she knows who she understands to be an inveterate child abuser, but cannot do the same for a person she likely does not know, but whose misconduct is far less.

So whence the differentiation?  Is this differentiation fair?  Should Kimball be treated with more condemnation and less grace?  Or should Wilcox be treated with less condemnation and more grace?

Food for though, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I knew what you were getting at. I just put my 2 cents worth in. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a more than fair critique. I regret my word choice. Blunt honesty is more appropriate. And blunt honesty is what Wilcox needed (and got) after his first apology. But yes as far as the sun total of bad things in the universe that include child abuse, his “sin” doesn’t rise very far. On the other hand, I do think in this day and age his views show an extreme amount of insularity (if that’s a word) and not a good look for the organization he represents. 

Insularity is a word. I googled it out Of curiosity.

 

also a fair critique. And I agree. It’s part of the reason I put medium. If this was my uncle opining over thanksgiving then that’s one thing. But he has a responsibility in a time that puts the need for judicious wording and careful thought at a premium. I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t part of the reason he had a hard week. It should get weighed by the many many voices who disagree with him in the church and in leadership IMHO. Of course that’s not usually what happens these days. Which is part of my concern too. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited February 17, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But knowing that sort of keeps us on the hook.

That's fair.  Can people like Jana apply precepts like "Do we ever truly know people" and make compassionate and empathetics references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again" as pertaining to Brad Wilcox?  It appears . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t know if I could add more to what calm said in response to this. It’s a good point. 
 

honestly I have moments where I struggle to do this fairly and keep what I’m saying in check. It’s moments like these that remind of doing that. I think I’ve gotten better, but I know I’ve made split judgments on people based on one aspect until something else comes along to remind me to balance it out.  I hesitate to judge another specifically on this same problem we likely all have to some degree or another. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[kimpearson]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

I don't think anyone is disputing that, either.

The point I am raising is not a comparison of the respective behaviors of these two people, but rather a comparison of the reactions to the behaviors of these two people.

Somehow, a person like Jana Riess can express some grace and magnimity for a person she knows who she understands to be an inveterate child abuser, but cannot do the same for a person she likely does not know, but whose misconduct is far less.

So whence the differentiation?  Is this differentiation fair?  Should Kimball be treated with more condemnation and less grace?  Or should Wilcox be treated with less condemnation and more grace?

Food for though, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

The difference in my experience is that there was no institution like the Church behind Kimball.  He was an individual with his own severe problems.  I don't think those who have expressed outrage at Brad Wilcox including myself are personally upset with Brad himself.  We are upset with an institution that tells us to trust and support it but that institution has done nothing to condemn or correct Brad Wilcox.  No statement from the Church explaining that Brad taught false doctrine.  No effort to publicly disavow what Brad taught to thousands of youth over the years.  It feels like the institution feels like we should just forgive and forget yet how many members have been excommunicated for saying things the Church doesn't agree with.  When the Church does nothing to Brad it feels like the Church is actually condoning what Brad taught and is trying very hard to just not say or do anything and let it blow by.  Why the double standard?  It seems like many active members struggle to understand that many members feel betrayed by comments like Brad's.  Not only betrayed but marginalized by such comments as somehow being less than a good member of the Church because they don't agree with Brad's comments and want an acknowledgement that Brad was wrong from the highest leaders in the Church.  Right now it feels like the good old boys club to many of us.  Brad is one of the select so the Church will let Brad apologize and do nothing else.  If it was a lowly member teaching such untruth to so many people, they probably would be be disciplined if not removed from membership.

[Rivers]

15 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

If it was a lowly member teaching such untruth to so many people, they probably would be be disciplined if not removed from membership.

Lowly church members teach crazy things all the time.  The kinds of things Brad Wilcox said in his talk are very common in the Church.  So we shouldn’t be singling out Brother Wilcox.  Instead we should be talking about the rhetoric itself.  How can all of us as church members better talk about issues of race, gender, and those of other faiths?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

don't think those who have expressed outrage at Brad Wilcox including myself are personally upset with Brad himself

Got to be kidding me. My outrage is a huge part personally upset with Wilcox. He is the one who did a superficial examination of issues before deciding on his apologetic and then stuck with it rather than refining over the years if reports are accurate, he chose to be disrespectful and treat nonmembers like children, teaching the youth to mock them and refused over the years to respond in effective ways to problems even while registering there were problems for people…or why was he giving apologies?  His responsibility is massive here.  He is not a puppet of the Church. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

If it was a lowly member teaching such untruth to so many people, they probably would be be disciplined if not removed from membership.

Lowly members generally don’t teach that many people. They are at least public figures who write popular books or do the FSY or Education Week circuit.

When was the last time you heard of a lowly member getting disciplined or membership removed for teaching folklore or being disrespectful to other faiths along the lines of Wilcox?  I never have seen anything like that.  It is just ignored.  Maybe certain callings aren’t offered. Mormon nice typically wins out.

The only ‘lowly members’ I have seen disciplined were those like Julie Rowe who went to energy work and guardian spirits and general crazy before getting barred from teaching in church settings and eventually excommunicated once she started her Messiah complex (not quite sure of the timing, if she had started her foundation and was telling people to donate to it rather than the Church or getting houses given to her yet).  And the guy who came up with Visions of Glory was a bishop for a bit.  Nothing has happened to him even after claiming it would be him who had the office next to Christ in the temple and not the First Presidency (essentially his work was more global in the gathering as opposed to the administrative and mundane duties of the Prophet and Apostles)

Rod Meldrum had a ban on teaching in church facilities because he was attempting to sell his materials there iirc, but haven’t heard of any other limitations put in him. 
 

Randy Bott was a BYU prof whose contract was not renewed.  Didn’t hold any major church callings I remember, wasn’t disciplined as far as I know. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

No. LDS kinda side step the whole spirit v physical thing and say all things including spirits are a form of matter. In the POGP it describes us entering different estates when we come to earth. D&C 93 notes the relationship between spirit and element like this:

“And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”

D&C also explicitly says HF and Jesus have physical bodies. So God is more like a perfect union between element and spirit. Kinda like the sun is literally a physical body but also something that eminates light and radiation through the entires solar system.
 

with luv, 

BD 

Yep. Transcendent clouds of spirit are not "fathers".

Everything a human can conceive about God has to be a metaphor created by, or for, man anyway.

We cannot comprehend what He really is, so the best story for how we see him wins anyway.

Now, we see thru a human mirror, darkly, but then face to face.  Hard to see his face if he doesn't have one, and he's not a shape shifter projection illusion.  

Is Christ diminished as God because he has a body? Of course not!

Or did he lose his resurrected body somehow? Oops!

Explain that one!    

The resurrection proves that embodied Gods exist- does Jehovah 's body (Christ) diminish him somehow?

Platonism says so, but we are not Pagan Greeks.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

So whence the differentiation?  Is this differentiation fair?  Should Kimball be treated with more condemnation and less grace?  Or should Wilcox be treated with less condemnation and more grace?

One is dead, the other not.  More than enough difference there to justify a different treatment.

Grace is offered Kimball for her own sake, much less for his.  Otoh, she may be thinking helping Wilcox to see the light and repent is the better Grace for him since after all he is still alive and there is a very good chance he will read her criticism.  More likely she sees him as the current representative of the Church that he is with all the potential for impact with that connection.

Plus Wilcox is still actively teaching and therefore still affecting others.  If he continues as is, there will be new victims of his efforts even if the level of harm in comparison to Kimball’s is so significantly different. Kimball otoh won’t be adding new victims himself to his tally. 
 

Show us an apples to apples comparison. Where she lets off someone she has been previously sympathetic to and who is still in a position to influence others when she condemning some sin of theirs, but holds someone whose ideology is in opposition to her own to a more rigid standard.  Or where she is commenting after the death of a church leader or popular speaker she viewed as harmful. 
 

Not saying she wouldn’t have a double standard, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. But to use her goodbye to a dead man and compare it to her treatment of a currently serving and living church leader is too different to be a valid comparison Imo. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Candidly, I pretty much agree with you.  

I remember her October 2020 eulogizing of Tom Kimball.  She somehow found it within herself, after having found out what he had done, to extend a substantial measure of understanding and empathy to him and his memory (alongside criticism).  She was able to acknowledge the various good things he had done (alongside acknowledging his errors against others).  To wax philosophical with questions like "Do we ever truly know people?" and make compassionate and empathetics references to "grace" and "[f]orgiveness," and "God be with you till we meet again."

No such corollary treatment for Brad Wilcox.  

Back then Robert Boylan, rather aptly I think, observed on Twitter that she was "trying to downplay TK's activities."  She responded with "No, you have misunderstood.  I am absolutely not excusing his behavior."  Robert then responded: "I said downplaying, not excusing.  If this was a conservative politician or the like, you would have rightly ripped into him.  But a liberal ex-Mo, well, walk on eggshells..."

We have all been quite troubled and disappointed by Bro. Wilcox's comments.  But perhaps he is as deserving of some of that grace Jana was able to find for Tom Kimball.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't disagree.  Humans are a mixed bag really.  Most have some redeeming qualities as well as some poor and even evil qualities. Quite a few years ago I read a book called The Dark Side of the Shadow Chasers.  I do not recall a lot about it but the premise was this:

Quote

Debbie Ford believes that we each hold within us a trace of every human characteristic that exists, the capacity for every human emotion. We are born with the ability to express this entire spectrum of characteristics. But, Ford points out, our families and our society send us strong messages about which ones are good and bad. So when certain impulses arise, we deny them instead of confronting them, giving them a healthy voice, then letting them go.

It is to these feelings that Ford turns our attention, these parts of our selves that don't fit the personae we have created for the rest of the world. She shows us the effects of living in the dark, of keeping all our supposedly unsavory impulses under wraps. We find ourselves disproportionately frustrated and angry at the selfishness of friends, the laziness of colleagues, the arrogance of siblings. When we are unable to reconcile similar impulses in ourselves, Ford explains, we waste our own energy judging others instead of empathizing. But most important, we deny ourselves the power and freedom of living authentically.

Through the stories and exercises in The Dark Side of the Light Chasers, Debbie Ford shows us not only how to recognize our hidden emotions, but also how to find the gifts they offer us. This is for fans of Marianne Williamson, Neale Donald Walsch, and Deepak Chopra. The very impulses we most fear may be the key to what is lacking in our lives.

I do recall that one point the author made is we all have within us the capacity to be the best of the best and the worse of the worse.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Jana views the Church as "an organization {she doesn't} like anymore"?

I dunno.  Nobody here seems to be defending Brad Wilcox's comments, even though we have common affection for the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm speaking in general terms about people in general as well, not only specifically about Jana and Brad.  And we are definitely seeing different levels of condemnation for Brad, and different levels of charity for him as well.  Mostly (not completely), these different levels fall along ideological lines.

And when I said that it's hard to pass up opportunities to feel justified I was mostly thinking about people like Dehlin, who relish in any opportunity to wax self righteous about the evils of the church.