Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

Not to me as I have long been aware the leadership isn’t particularly consistent in their approaches….just compare the Joseph Smith Papers project to Old Testament Institute manual which still hasn’t been updated even though it used horrendous ‘scholarship’ for its time.  I bought the manual when it was hot off the presses (Genesis/PoGP is my favorite scripture, I was at BYU in the early 80s and collected church manuals because I wasn’t taking classes at the time) and was horrified then and eager for an update…40 years later, still waiting.  I was reading Nibley’s stuff at the same time from the same source, BYU Bookstore and HBL Library and had a OT class in late 70’s that more or less ignored the evolution debate as irrelevant.

Hopefully we are going to get some background on how that OT manual ever managed to get approved in the not so distant future (Ben Spackman has been doing extensive research in this area, including if I understand him correctly into the personal papers of the man responsible for that section).

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

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? 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 ____?"

Some thoughts on your three points:

1) Conjecture undermines valid points. Testimony does not; it is the point. We use personal (and fallible) insights, style, talents and experience to illustrate and teach that of which we testify, but as we can see, there is an inherent risk in that.

2) I see the Church’s role in these stickier questions as, “We don’t know [x] but this is what we do know about handling the effects of [x] given the infinite and eternal atonement of Jesus Christ. In the meantime, we strive to know the will of the Lord, united in councils.”

3) More informal discussions (“What do you think, Brother/Elder/President "Doe"?) can only be had among a relatively small circle of friends, which term I use broadly to include focused discussion panels, scholarly presentations and debates where participants agree upon the ground rules. The Church cannot do this is in a virtual, all-member format, or even in the Q&A session general authorities often hold at stake conferences.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There is still very much a belief in the Church that the priesthood ban was God's will and God's timing.

This is, approximately, my belief, but I reject your line of argument in the other thread on race as well as almost everything else you've written in this thread. My black housemate and my former black housemate would be in almost identical positions to mine. Just to illustrate another point on the spectrum.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is, approximately, my belief, but I reject your line of argument in the other thread on race as well as almost everything else you've written in this thread. My black housemate and my former black housemate would be in almost identical positions to mine. Just to illustrate another point on the spectrum.

Truly curious and I promise not to pry further, but do you believe that God revealed the ban to Joseph or Brigham. And do you feel comfortable sharing why you think God instituted it?

Edited February 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JustAnAustralian]

Without trying to derail further, and this may lead in to how Hamba answers. But I guess some people might think that God wasn't involved with the implementation of the ban, but was involved in the timing of removing it.

[kimpearson]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

For those of us traumatized by the Church, Brad Wilcox is a puppet of the Church.   Brad was taught these things in Church.  Brad was rewarded for teaching these things by being called to the YM's presidency because that call was supposedly made by divine revelation by prophets, seers and revelators.  Those prophets, seers and revelators will never admit that the spirit told them nothing about Brad's beliefs.  Active fully believing members will blame Brad because they would never concede that the men at top made a mistake.  I will also likely hear from fully believing members that Brad was allowed to be called by God to teach a lesson which would be very weird for a God who would abhor such teachings.  For many of us Brad is just a proof of one of several problems with our top Church leaders.  Problems that many of us see as not being that hard to solve.

[kimpearson]

18 hours ago, Rivers said:

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?  

And if they teach them to enough people they get ex'd.  Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Julie Rowe.  I have no problem with these excommunications because they were actively teaching things that drew people away from God.  Brad's teachings drew people away from God.

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Active fully believing members will blame Brad because they would never concede that the men at top made a mistake. 

Your absolute statements really need work on them. I am an active fully believing Saint and I believe Brigham Young and prophets following him made a huge error with the Ban. I think there is a current error of not sealing living women to all their husbands as we do the dead.  I think there was a major error by those dismissing evolution. 
 

Wilcox was allowed to be called and to teach as was Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie and every other soul who has ever been a leader or teacher including me because God allows us all to be idiots, even leaders, imo so that we will figure out we need to seek the only nonidiots we know to build our true foundation on, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Julie Rowe.

Do you know what Rowe was teaching?  I feel like singing “one of these things is not like the others”…

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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 ____?"

I would ask were is God in this discussion.  If God told the prophets you don't need to know this right now that would be one thing (D&C 130) but the prophets haven't said that is why?  Why for issues like Brad tried to explain, that cause pain and loss of faith, would God not give some kind of guidance to His prophets?  Are we saying the PR and avoiding risk is the revelation the God had given His Church?  Is that the only explanation any of you can come up with why Church leaders have not spoken out against Brad's teachings after they came to light?  I will admit I am willing to give Church leaders time to formulate their response since the Church is now governed by councils and unanimity which take time.  General Conference should be plenty of time.

[kimpearson]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?

I have a hard time understanding your comparison.  Which active members of the Church are asking for an official explanation of why they should serve missions, in callings, serve in the community, keep the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, pay tithing and so on.  I don't know of anyone asking the Church for further clarification because no one really knows the reason for these doctrines.  The only issues I see are questions about how the Church enforces and interprets those policies.  Examples, are people influenced to serve missions when they really shouldn't for various reasons.  Are bishops overworked and do callings take to much time away from ones personal life?  Does breaking the word of wisdom make one a terrible person not able to go to the Celestial kingdom.  Is breaking the law of chastity really a sin next to death?  Why does the Church need more tithing.  Many just don't believe the explanation the Church has given.  Not the same type of issue at all as far as the Church explaining doctrine.  Doctrine is explained in your examples.  Doctrines of the past with little to no explanation like Brad addressed are very different.

[smac97]

Just now, kimpearson said:

I have a hard time understanding your comparison.  Which active members of the Church are asking for an official explanation of why they should serve missions, in callings, serve in the community, keep the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, pay tithing and so on.  I don't know of anyone asking the Church for further clarification because no one really knows the reason for these doctrines.  The only issues I see are questions about how the Church enforces and interprets those policies.  Examples, are people influenced to serve missions when they really shouldn't for various reasons.  Are bishops overworked and do callings take to much time away from ones personal life?  Does breaking the word of wisdom make one a terrible person not able to go to the Celestial kingdom.  Is breaking the law of chastity really a sin next to death?  Why does the Church need more tithing.  Many just don't believe the explanation the Church has given.  Not the same type of issue at all as far as the Church explaining doctrine.  Doctrine is explained in your examples.  Doctrines of the past with little to no explanation like Brad addressed are very different.

 I decline to have a conversation with you.

[kimpearson]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you know what Rowe was teaching?  I feel like singing “one of these things is not like the others”…

Was she a leader in the Church such as a general officer or general board member?  Did she teach false doctrine?  The only difference in my mind is Julie led people away from the Church while Brad perpetuated beliefs that have hurt many and caused them to leave the Church.

[kimpearson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I decline to have a conversation with you.

Thanks I will take your lack of response as agreement with my point.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Was she a leader in the Church such as a general officer or general board member?  Did she teach false doctrine?  The only difference in my mind is Julie led people away from the Church while Brad perpetuated beliefs that have hurt many and caused them to leave the Church.

Mentally unstable, predicting natural disasters, martial law, and invasions that never happened and claiming to be one of the Davidic kings/leaders ushering in the Second Coming where she will be assassinated and then raised from the dead to lead God’s armies….along with a host of other visions and angels visiting her where she can’t keep her predictions straight…nothing close to Kelly, Snuffer, and Dehlin.  Possible chance she was also getting into polygamy or some variation of it.

But if you want to group Dehlin, Kelly, and Snuffer with someone who is definitely mentally disturbed and likely delusional, go for it. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Mentally unstable, predicting natural disasters, martial law, and invasions that never happened and claiming to be one of the Davidic kings/leaders ushering in the Second Coming where she will be assassinated and then raised from the dead to lead God’s armies….along with a host of other visions and angels visiting her where she can’t keep her predictions straight…nothing close to Kelly, Snuffer, and Dehlin.  Possible chance she was also getting into polygamy or some variation of it.

But if you want to group Dehlin, Kelly, and Snuffer with someone who is definitely mentally disturbed and likely delusional, go for it. 

I am just curious what you think about someone who is mentally disturbed and delusional.  Are they to be held accountable for their actions if they are mentally unstable and delusional?  Did the course of action the Church took help Julie in any way?  Just for some background before Covid I staffed a day program for adults who were mentally unstable and delusional.  I also tried to deal some with the street folk who are mentally unstable and delusional.  Two population that get very little help from our society.  I haven 't followed the Julie Rowe story that closely but if you are right did anyone from her church community try to help her?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Without trying to derail further, and this may lead in to how Hamba answers. But I guess some people might think that God wasn't involved with the implementation of the ban, but was involved in the timing of removing it.

“the priesthood ban was God's will and God's timing.” Led me to believe he was saying the ban was God’s will. 
 

Are you saying the ban itself was a mistake, but we needed a revelation from God on the timing to undo a mistake? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just curious. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

I haven 't followed the Julie Rowe story that closely but if you are right did anyone from her church community try to help her?

Out of curiosity, why do you think I would know this?  And if I did, wouldn’t it likely be something that should be kept confidential or do you think it appropriate to share without permission information about people’s medical treatment or welfare support?

Quote

Are they to be held accountable for their actions if they are mentally unstable and delusional? 

That would depend on the person, how they became mentally unstable, including interactions with others (for example, I do not think it was helpful for Rowe to get involved with Daybell, who imo used her and encouraged her delusions to make money off of her as he basically told her to make more elaborate claims about her visions if he wanted a longer chapter according to Rowe shortly after her first book was published iirc), and how competent they were outside of their delusions and likely a host of other factors. Mental dysfunction and emotional disorders are very complex and cover a broad range of situations. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Wilcox was allowed to be called and to teach as was Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie because God allows us all to be idiots, even leaders, imo so that we will figure out we need to seek the only nonidiots we know to build our true foundation on, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

Amén and amén.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

Just for some background before Covid I staffed a day program for adults who were mentally unstable and delusional.  I also tried to deal some with the street folk who are mentally unstable and delusional. 

You mentioned in the past iirc that you were an auditor for the Church, so I am assuming your training is as an accountant of some sort. You have talked about having numerous conversations with LGBT and others and now this.  Did you switch careers or just do a lot of volunteer work?  Applaud you either way for trying to help others. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Thanks I will take your lack of response as agreement with my point.

Do you really think he is agreeing with your point and if not, why did you choose to say this? I am curious as I think it a bit of childish nonsense and yet I see quite intelligent, reasonable people using it from time to time.

The only thing that occurs to me is this is an adult version of goading, like calling someone chicken if they refuse to get into a fist fight as kids, but rather than assuming that is what you were doing I thought it would be better to let you explain since you seem comfortable enough to share. 

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Your absolute statements really need work on them. I am an active fully believing Saint and I believe Brigham Young and prophets following him made a huge error with the Ban. I think there is a current error of not sealing living women to all their husbands as we do the dead.  I think there was a major error by those dismissing evolution. 
 

Wilcox was allowed to be called and to teach as was Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R McConkie and every other soul who has ever been a leader or teacher including me because God allows us all to be idiots, even leaders, imo so that we will figure out we need to seek the only nonidiots we know to build our true foundation on, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. 

if God waited to only call perfect people, I would be the only member of the church. 

[Rivers]

5 hours ago, kimpearson said:

And if they teach them to enough people they get ex'd.  Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Julie Rowe.  I have no problem with these excommunications because they were actively teaching things that drew people away from God.  Brad's teachings drew people away from God.

I was not aware that Julie Rowe got ex’d.  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I was not aware that Julie Rowe got ex’d.  

 

She kind of went ballistic, but expects the apostles to be asking her forgiveness sometime in the near future…the few surviving ones at least.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying the ban itself was a mistake, but we needed a revelation from God on the timing to undo a mistake? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just curious.

It's not a theory I think is correct but I'm pretty sure I've read that other people have put it forward.