Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Analytics]

12 hours 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...

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done, I suspect Riess's comments would have had a different tone.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 
 

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done….

Kimball in essence runs away, depriving his victims of a chance for confrontation and justice and Wilcox at least tries to engage by making two public apologies.  “Merely” seems the wrong word choice here to me.

Assuming Kimball killed himself out of shame rather than fear of arrest and suffering is a big assumption, especially given he apparently was confronted before by at least one victim and wasn’t so mortified he stopped abusing iirc. (I do need to check my recall on this last bit..added:  I was right, secondhand confirmation, but one poster reported his children stated he killed himself to avoid punishment, not out of shame or mortification…my guess is they knew best.  Park stated Kimball had said inappropriate things about her as this was coming to light…that is defensive behaviour at best and sounds more like a continuation of abusive behaviour to me, meaning it looks like there was no sense of shame https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73248-post-mormon-reaction-to-child-abusers-from-their-own-community/) 

added:  this is specific from Kimball’s wife:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73248-post-mormon-reaction-to-child-abusers-from-their-own-community/?do=findComment&comment=1209997843

Quote

 

The last week of Tom's life, he repeated to me several times, "I'm a good person." When I finally told him (on the last day of his life) that I knew about his sexual abuse and told him, "You're not behaving like a good person," rather than humbling himself and apologizing for his actions, he lashed out, telling me I wasn't being fair to him. I won't go into my response, but you can I imagine my rebuttal.

Tom killed himself, not because he was depressed, but because he was afraid to go to jail.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done, I suspect Riess's comments would have had a different tone.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 

Um, what?  

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done, I suspect Riess's comments would have had a different tone.

The only way to obtain grace and magnimity from Jane Riess is to commit suicide?

Also, see Calm's post above.  You seem to be speaking more favorably of Kimball's suicide (which, per Kimball's kids, was less about remorse/guilt and more about avoiding accountability) than you are of Wilcox's efforts to apologize.  Is that so?  What are you saying here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done, I suspect Riess's comments would have had a different tone.

Yeah, that was my initial reaction as well.  I'm hoping we are wrong.

If people like Jana (and Roger?) are only willing to be magnanimous to people who literally kill themselves, then . . . I don't know what to say.  I wouldn't have thought to see a resurgence of a quasi-"blood atonement" approach to making amends for serious error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, that was my initial reaction as well.  I'm hoping we are wrong.

If people like Jana (and Roger?) are only willing to be magnanimous to people who literally kill themselves, then . . . I don't know what to say.  I wouldn't have thought to see a resurgence of a quasi-"blood atonement" approach to making amends for serious error.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm hoping that maybe he was being sarcastic in some way?  Speaking favorably about suicide does not come across well, especially when the person who killed themselves had victims that wanted their day in court.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The only way to obtain grace and magnimity from Jane Riess is to commit suicide?

I never said nor implied that. My point is merely that your attempt to redirect this thread into an indictment of Jana Reiss is misguided. I think the psalmist was on to something when he said that sometimes its a time for war, and other times it is a time for peace. A 1,000 word essay about anything isn't the right forum for a nuanced, magnanimity-filled analysis about how and why people are more complex than this or that misdeed. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, see Calm's post above.  You seem to be speaking more favorably of Kimball's suicide (which, per Kimball's kids, was less about remorse/guilt and more about avoiding accountability) than you are of Wilcox's efforts to apologize.  Is that so? 

No, of course not. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What are you saying here?

I'm saying that juxtaposing these two essays in an effort to judge Reiss is fundamentally misguided.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, that was my initial reaction as well.  I'm hoping we are wrong.

If people like Jana (and Roger?) are only willing to be magnanimous to people who literally kill themselves, then . . . I don't know what to say.  I wouldn't have thought to see a resurgence of a quasi-"blood atonement" approach to making amends for serious error.

I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh or cry.

 

I'll just note the irony of you not displaying much magnanimity towards Jana Reiss in this series of posts. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh or cry.

You could respond to the inquiries rather than . . . this.

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll just note the irony of you not displaying much magnanimity towards Jana Reiss in this series of posts. 

I'm suggesting magnanmity in greater portions all around.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

 

A huge difference is that when he got busted, Tom Kimball committed suicide. In contrast, Wilcox merely offered a half-baked apology. 

If Wilcox would have literally killed himself because he was so mortified about what he had done, I suspect Riess's comments would have had a different tone.

 

The only way to obtain grace and magnimity from Jane Riess is to commit suicide?

 

I never said nor implied that.

Okay.  It came across that way.  In juxtaposting Kimball's and Wilcox's response to their respective behaviors, you seemed to denigrate the latter ("merely offered a half-baked apology) as being inferior to the former.

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is merely that your attempt to redirect this thread into an indictment of Jana Reiss is misguided.

I'm not trying to indict Jana Riess.  I am, instead, proposing that Wilcox is as deserving of some of that grace she was able to find for Tom Kimball.  Do you agree or disagree with that?

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think the psalmist was on to something when he said that sometimes its a time for war, and other times it is a time for peace. A 1,000 word essay about anything isn't the right forum for a nuanced, magnanimity-filled analysis about how and why people are more complex than this or that misdeed. 

She found space for that nuance and magnanimity when eulogizing Tom Kimball.

And in any event, none of us are limited to a 1,000-word essay when it comes to measuring out grace and magnanimity.  If we can find some of this for Tom Kimball, can we not also do the same for Brad Wilcox?  Joseph Smith?  Brigham Young?

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Also, see Calm's post above.  You seem to be speaking more favorably of Kimball's suicide (which, per Kimball's kids, was less about remorse/guilt and more about avoiding accountability) than you are of Wilcox's efforts to apologize.  Is that so? 

No, of course not. 

It came across that way, but I'll take your word for it.

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm saying that juxtaposing these two essays in an effort to judge Reiss is fundamentally misguided.

How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2022 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not defending anything Brad Wilcox has said, ever, at any time, and I know as well as anyone and at least better than some how words truly can hurt (you should hear some of the names I was called in elementary school ).  However, Jana Reiss's comments, perhaps, are indicative, in one respect, of how upside-down things have gotten in our society.

If someone (Brad Wilcox) says something objectionable, many people say that person should be "cancelled," isolated, marginalized, vilified, ostracized, fired from one's job, expelled from one's school, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.  On the other hand, when someone (Tom Kimball) does things that, by any standard, are abhorrent, abominable, repellent, and truly inexcusable, it seems that the first impulse of many is to try to find psychological or sociological justifications (or, if not justifications, at least explanations) for behavior that is truly and and truly wrong.

I think it's a fascinating phenomenon.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She found space for that nuance and magnanimity when eulogizing Tom Kimball.

Yes. That was the point of that article. The article about Wilcox had a different point. 

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And in any event, none of us are limited to a 1,000-word essay when it comes to measuring out grace and magnanimity.  If we can find some of this for Tom Kimball, can we not also do the same for Brad Wilcox?  Joseph Smith?  Brigham Young?

Sure, and the good news is the Church is improving in this regard. For example, before 1990 the endowment ceremony mocked other religions and their leaders, but since then the church has become more graceful and magnanimous and to a large extent, cut those elements of the endowment out. That is a great improvement.

And it's easy to see how somebody steeped in those traditions could have the beliefs and attitudes that Wilcox displayed, so in that sense it isn't Wilcox's fault he said what he did, so as much as it's his religion's fault. But as I said above, the religion has been evolving and improving, and many Latter-day Saints no longer hold the same arrogant and bigoted beliefs that Wilcox displayed. That's wonderful for the Church as a whole. Furthermore, to his credit Wilcox has been introspecting about his beliefs and words and going forward, will undoubtedly be more magnanimous about what he says to and about women, blacks, Latter-day Saints who see things differently, and non-members. 

Yes. I'm all in favor of grace and magnanimity. 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Analytics

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In juxtaposting Kimball's and Wilcox's response to their respective behaviors, you seemed to denigrate the latter ("merely offered a half-baked apology) as being inferior to the former.

And it looks like at least 5 people interpreted Analytics’ post that way given the rep points and posts, so if Wilcox’s behaviour as inferior to Kimball’s was not what is meant by Analytics, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to go back to that post and clarify and use something else besides “merely”.

(And I have obviously disagreed with Smac comparing the two treatments by Reiss previously, so me siding with Smac in general is not what is leading my interpretation since I am not ‘siding’ with him except to the extent that Analytic’s post appeared to be more positive about Kimball’s suicide than Wilcox’s apologies).

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And it's easy to see how somebody steeped in those traditions could have the beliefs and attitudes that Wilcox displayed, so in that sense it isn't Wilcox's fault he said what he did, so as much as it's his religion's fault

If he is still doing it 30 years after the Church has altered its approach, I think it is fair to say it is his fault he hasn’t been paying attention to what his faith is currently teaching.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

And it looks like at least 5 people interpreted it that way, so if not what is meant, perhaps it would be a good idea to go back to that post and clarify and use something else besides “merely”.

(And I have obviously disagreed with Smac comparing the two treatments previously, so it is not that which is leading my interpretation)

Is this post a response to Analytics?  The board keeps messing up the quotation feature and I can’t completely tell. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is this post a response to Analytics?  The board keeps messing up the quotation feature and I can’t completely tell. 

Yes and sort of…I will rewrite it.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Calm

[Lonewolf8128]

He could of expanded on his message, and should have researched more of a black perspective on the subject, but still just a mistake. He apologized for it.

People like Dehlin just want to make $$$ off of every mistake someone makes. Not good people.

[rongo]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

If he is still doing it 30 years after the Church has altered its approach, I think it is fair to say it is his fault he hasn’t been paying attention to what his faith is currently teaching.

I think that there have been a number of "Lucy pulling the football away" moments that don't make it seem like "what his faith is currently teaching" is what many people seem to think it is. If you look at a number of things, the most recent of which is the Wilcox affair, I think it's clear that beliefs even among Church leadership often aren't in sync with the PR (e.g., Wilcox, Come Follow Me Book of Mormon manual, priesthood ban essay not condemning or repudiating the ban itself, no apology that activists are clamoring for, etc.). The Church can "say all the right things" according to the PR textbook, but this doesn't mean that beliefs have actually changed. 

I believe that Wilcox is sincerely sorry and saddened by the reaction to his talk(s), but I don't think that his beliefs or views have actually changed because of it. That's evident (to me) in the wording of his apologies (which are also textbook PR damage control, but stop far short).

BYU's terse statement is classic in its damage control wording (without saying much). 

"We are deeply concerned with the words recently used by Dr. Brad Wilcox. We appreciate his sincere apology and believe he is committed to learn from this experience. BYU remains committed to upholding President Nelson’s charge to root out racism in our institutions."

I do appreciate that BYU seems to be sincerely concerned for his welfare and well-being, and the barebones statement "responds" without throwing anyone under the bus.

My favorite recent trend in Stalinist show apologies-speak is "I am learning and studying more about this, and will do better." Recently, Whoopi Goldberg demonstrated this with her statement that she would spend her suspension "educating herself on the Holocaust." There is a set formula for the damage control mea culpas that people are expected to follow. I'm glad that Wilcox is apparently going to be able to "get back on the horse" and move on (with an assist from Brother Corbitt. I wonder if they are having a "conversation" for the fireside in Long Beach on Sunday, like last Sunday in Edmonton, or if Wilcox is going to be the main event again so soon?), without ritual groveling and abasement. His statements were also very terse and expressed sadness without navel-gazing and dwelling on specifics. 

It's interesting to me that the Church itself hasn't even addressed the Wilcox Affair. If this is allowed to "blow over" and things like what Brother Wilcox has taught aren't directly addressed, what does that say about "what his faith is currently teaching?"

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's interesting to me that the Church itself hasn't even addressed the Wilcox Affair. If this is allowed to "blow over" and things like what Brother Wilcox has taught aren't directly addressed, what does that say about "what his faith is currently teaching?"

It means we will have another Bott or Wilcox moment.

And it means that until the Church is willing to offer official explanations for these issues members will continue to fill in the blanks with what ever fills the seats at firesides.

[rongo]

53 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

1) It means we will have another Bott or Wilcox moment.

2) And it means that until the Church is willing to offer official explanations for these issues members will continue to fill in the blanks with what ever fills the seats at firesides.

1) What does that say if there are continued and repeated Bott or Wilcox moments, decades and decades into the future? To me, it means that the Church says one thing for PR purposes, and then is laissez faire when it comes to "enforcement." And, the reason for that is that there is still very much a belief in the Church that the priesthood ban was God's will and God's timing. It's alive and well. Only the specific explanation that unvaliance in the pre-existence is behind it is "disavowed."

2) You bring up an interesting point here. There is a crying need for many for substantial discussion on a host of topics. The risk-averse people in the Church (very prominent among the legal-PR industrial complex, but also many rank-and-file members. Some have expressed this sentiment here) want the answer to absolutely everything to be "We don't know." This plays it safe, and avoids stepping on rakes. There are many people, though, who crave substantial discussion about these things, and they don't get it from the institutional Church or its publications. These people are fine with disagreement, uncertainty, and even some controversy and messiness, but they want and crave substantial discussion. 

I've mentioned this before, but I was invited to do multiple (three, I think) firesides in a heavily-LDS area that centered around questions and discussion. I wasn't known to most people at these, so initially there was a "who is this guy?" vibe. I made it crystal clear that I am a nobody --- I don't speak for the Church, and the official Church positions are to be found in very well-defined places (which were briefly discussed and pointed out). But, we need to get over our fear of discussing things that aren't "nailed down" --- and anybody and everybody can do that, as long as they understand the ground rules that nobody is bound by the discussion. We talked about "prophet poker" (hat tip to Alan Wyatt for coining that phrase): prophets and apostles who disagreed sharply on doctrine or policy (e.g., one Savior for the whole universe vs. a separate tempter and savior for each world [Fielding Smith/McConkie vs. Young], advancement between kingdoms, absolute vs. limited omniscience/omnipotence, etc.), and "open questions" (questions that aren't settled in the Church, and which people can have differing views on, while being careful not to teach one of them as authoritative). 

With that preliminary, it's amazing what discussion ensues when people are given the green light: so, what questions or issues do you want to talk about? What are you interested in? I often shared different approaches to questions or issues, but people always wanted to know what my own view was. They understood full well that it was my own only, and that there are other views and that some people disagree with mine --- but, they still want to know where I came down on them. I think many risk-averse people insist that it's irresponsible to answer that (the answer should always be "I don't know"), and want a speaker/teacher to always avoid answering that, but it's unavoidable. And probably shouldn't be avoided, in my view. 

Just being able to discuss such things with others and with someone who knows a lot about it and can discuss it was a real shot in the arm for many at those. It's not the sort of discussion that can be had in most wards, and like you said,  until the Church is willing to offer official explanations for these issues members will continue to fill in the blanks with what ever fills the seats at firesides [or, other trusted people]."

I think it's for this reason that things like the gospel topics essays or carefully-worded minimalist official statements from the Church remain unsatisfying to many people. I think that many would really like to know what the Brethren (as individuals, and in groups) really think and believe about many things, and in this age of hyper-correlation, everything is going to be tightly bottled up. When the answer to absolutely everything is "We don't know," many people's response is, "Okay, there is no official position on this. But, what do you think? How do you reconcile and come to terms with ____?"

Edited February 17, 2022 by rongo

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Until the Church is willing to offer official explanations for these issues members will continue to fill in the blanks with whatever fills the seats at firesides.

All this definitely shows that we are very slow learners.  We keep having one disaster after another because of personal "filling in the blanks" because the members need a reason for whatever.

There is never a shortage of people willing to teaching the "gospel according to me", which isn't really a problem until (when) members and nonmember take off the "according to..." part of that statement.

Which I think pretty much always happens.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If he is still doing it 30 years after the Church has altered its approach, I think it is fair to say it is his fault he hasn’t been paying attention to what his faith is currently teaching.

On the other hand, over those 30 years he's been a BYU religion professor, mission president, member of Sunday School General Board, counselor in Young Men general presidency, author, and popular speaker. The idea that a BYU religion professor on the Church's Sunday School Board isn't "paying attention" to what the Church is really teaching seems like special pleading.

I think what really happened is there's been a grass roots shift in the sensibilities of Latter-day Saints that he missed from his lofty vantage point. He just now realized that talking points he's been making for decades now have a different effect on his audiences.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

1) What does that say if there are continued and repeated Bott or Wilcox moments, decades and decades into the future?

The Church constantly exhorts us to serve missions and in callings, serve in the community, keep the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, pay tithing, and so on.  What do these "continued and repeated" points of counsel, offered over and over against for "decades and decades," say?

That . . . the Saints are imperfect?

Regarding your question, might we consider that overcoming and eliminating vestiges of racism across an entire society is a process, not an event?

1 hour ago, rongo said:

To me, it means that the Church says one thing for PR purposes, and then is laissez faire when it comes to "enforcement."

What do you mean by "enforcement"?

1 hour ago, rongo said:

And, the reason for that is that there is still very much a belief in the Church that the priesthood ban was God's will and God's timing. 

I think most folks don't give a lot of time and effort and study over to the origins of the priesthood ban.  It originated well before they were born, and ended 40+ years ago.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

2) You bring up an interesting point here. There is a crying need for many for substantial discussion on a host of topics. The risk-averse people in the Church (very prominent among the legal-PR industrial complex, but also many rank-and-file members. Some have expressed this sentiment here) want the answer to absolutely everything to be "We don't know."

This seems quite overwrought.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This plays it safe, and avoids stepping on rakes.

I dunno.  I think the "Race and the Priesthood" essay was quite good.  We have received clear and emphatic counsel from recent prophets and apostles.  The Church is partnering with the NAACP and is otherwise working on initiatives to help our black brothers and sisters both inside and outside our faith.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There are many people, though, who crave substantial discussion about these things, and they don't get it from the institutional Church or its publications. These people are fine with disagreement, uncertainty, and even some controversy and messiness, but they want and crave substantial discussion. 

I sort of question that.  Nobody is stopping anyone from having "substantial discussion." 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I've mentioned this before, but I was invited to do multiple (three, I think) firesides in a heavily-LDS area that centered around questions and discussion. I wasn't known to most people at these, so initially there was a "who is this guy?" vibe. I made it crystal clear that I am a nobody --- I don't speak for the Church, and the official Church positions are to be found in very well-defined places (which were briefly discussed and pointed out). But, we need to get over our fear of discussing things that aren't "nailed down" --- and anybody and everybody can do that, as long as they understand the ground rules that nobody is bound by the discussion.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  We have discussions of this sort all the time on this board.  There are tons of venues and outlets for such discussions, and for written treatments of these topics.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

With that preliminary, it's amazing what discussion ensues when people are given the green light: so, what questions or issues do you want to talk about? What are you interested in? I often shared different approaches to questions or issues, but people always wanted to know what my own view was. They understood full well that it was my own only, and that there are other views and that some people disagree with mine --- but, they still want to know where I came down on them. I think many risk-averse people insist that it's irresponsible to answer that (the answer should always be "I don't know"), and want a speaker/teacher to always avoid answering that, but it's unavoidable. And probably shouldn't be avoided, in my view. 

You keep denigrating "I don't know," as if it is an inherently evasive or dishonest response.  I think there are many points about which we should warmly embrace "I don't know."  Sharing speculation and conjecture and mere personal opinion as ends unto themselves is, in my view, a very bad idea.  Look at how much damage speculation and conjecture has done in terms of rationalizing the priesthood ban.  Haven't we learned from this?  Further, such things distract from the "weightier matters" that deserve far more attention and effort to study, to understand, to apply.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Just being able to discuss such things with others and with someone who knows a lot about it and can discuss it was a real shot in the arm for many at those. It's not the sort of discussion that can be had in most wards, and like you said,  until the Church is willing to offer official explanations for these issues members will continue to fill in the blanks with what ever fills the seats at firesides [or, other trusted people]."

I think it's for this reason that things like the gospel topics essays or carefully-worded minimalist official statements from the Church remain unsatisfying to many people. I think that many would really like to know what the Brethren (as individuals, and in groups) really think and believe about many things, and in this age of hyper-correlation, everything is going to be tightly bottled up. 

I reject the characterization of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay as "minimalist."  And I see nothing wrong with it being "carefully-worded."

I also reject the notion that the Latter-day Saints just don't have enough to jaw about, that we are justified in feeling "unsatisfied" as to the volume of content available to us to discuss the precepts of the Restored Gospel, the history of the Church, and so on.  If anything, I think the Saints are not doing nearly enough personal study about these things.  

I also reject the notion that the Brethren are "bottled up" as to the important topics of the day.  Again, haven't we learned anything from our history?  How much frustration and difficulty have we encountered because leaders in the past conflated their personal opinions (publishing what they "really think") with the revealed doctrines of the Restoration?  And in any event, aren't the Brethren principally tasked with being Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ?  Why, then, is it imperative that they publish to the world what they think about minutiae and speculative topics?

I also don't see any need for the Church to host meetings wherein people discuss / debate / argue over speculations, controversies, hobby horses, and so on. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 18, 2022 by smac97

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I reject the characterization of the "Race and the Priesthood" essay as "minimalist."  And I see nothing wrong with it being "carefully-worded."

I also reject the notion that the Latter-day Saints just don't have enough to jaw about, that we are justified in feeling "unsatisfied" as to the volume of content available to us to discuss the precepts of the Restored Gospel, the history of the Church, and so on.  If anything, I think the Saints are not doing nearly enough personal study about these things.  

I also reject the notion that the Brethren are "bottled up" as to the important topics of the day.  Again, haven't we learned anything from our history?  How much frustration and difficulty have we encountered because leaders in the past conflated their personal opinions (publishing what they "really think") with the revealed doctrines of the Restoration?  And in any event, aren't the Brethren principally tasked with being Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ?  Why, then, is it imperative that they publish to the world what they think about minutiae and speculative topics?

Rejections duly noted.  Clerk, enter it into the official record.  

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And it looks like at least 5 people interpreted Analytics’ post that way given the rep points and posts, so if Wilcox’s behaviour as inferior to Kimball’s was not what is meant by Analytics, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to go back to that post and clarify and use something else besides “merely”.

My point is simply that the two essays aren't comparable because the two situations aren't comparable and the author's relationships with the individuals involved are different. I'm definitively NOT ranking the sins of child molestation, suicide, arrogance, insufficient apologies, and anything else these folks may be guilty of. Saying a barrage of insensitive things and apologizing is a different life event than killing yourself. It is a smaller thing. That is what I meant by "merely." It's okay to reflect differently about different things.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Analytics