Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I disagree with the no recording part. It's pretty clear they want the dialogue out in the open (otherwise they wouldn't have turned up at his class), so it wouldn't surprise me if they want it recorded. 
I would have the group, Brad, and which ever third party is there (whether byu admin, neutral negotiator, etc) to each have their own recording set up. That way no person can get away with selectively editing it, or making false accusations of the meeting contents.

I actually agree about recording it as well. It’s so easy for people to “hear” something that the other person didn’t say, or to misunderstand without realizing it. A recording that can be referred to after the fact would take most of the interpretation out the event, which in my mind means a much smaller chance for people to run with an interpretation of a statement that the speaker doesn’t agree with.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Strongly disagree. A public, recorded spectacle is very different from the stated purpose of "just having a dialogue." I think they should make clear how sincere the use of that buzz phrase is. Nate Byrd's invoking of a larger agenda about bringing about change at BYU (and dissatisfaction with BYU's rate of change, or actual change) makes me want to avoid any type of recorded spectacle. 

Do they want "a dialogue" with Wilcox, or not? Is this really about Wilcox's fireside rhetoric, or something larger (ie., is Wilcox a proxy here)?

I don’t think a dialogue needs to be private, nor does it need to be without an agenda.  (It would be really weird to seek out such a meeting without an idea of what you wanted to discuss or goals for the meeting.). If it’s private than it only helps the very few people in attendance. I would guess the BSU wants it to be helpful to a much larger audience.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think a dialogue needs to be private, nor does it need to be without an agenda.  (It would be really weird to seek out such a meeting without an idea of what you wanted to discuss or goals for the meeting.). If it’s private than it only helps the very few people in attendance. I would guess the BSU wants it to be helpful to a much larger audience.

Then Wilcox is the wrong target. They should be seeking an audience with Kevin Worthen, or the VP of diversity and inclusion. And if they wanted a large,broad audience, a Rel 250 class also wasn't the target audience.

If they wanted to have a historic,public event that launches sweeping changes at BYU, they should say that instead of pretend that they just want to have a dialogue with Wilcox. I think their reaction to "keeping it small" and non-public is a good way to smoke out how sincere the initial request was, and if there is a bigger agenda. 

If this initial, small talk goes well (or not), that could lead to the larger audience they seek,but I think they should insist on starting there. Like the counsel in scripture to "take thy brother between him and thee" instead of airing things out publicly. At least as a starting point.

I'd also like to see Wilcox be able to get on with his life, job, etc. and not have to face mobs indefinitely or constantly be drawn into things like this.

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/19/2022 at 6:39 PM, Calm said:

I am toying with the idea mortal life is more like a lucid dream for our eternal selves, so that there is a part of us that can see the whole picture even while it is happening.  The veil is like a one way mirror, though I dislike talking as if we are two beings or two minds when we are all one…but is the finger aware of what the hand  is experiencing or the hand the body or does our mind collect and integrate all the different ‘experiences’ happening to our bodies and we can live the individual experience of a finger slammed in the door while simultaneously live as a complete body, reacting to the damage of the finger as well as what else is happening.  The complete self thus can recognize the hand of God in our lives and is learning a multitude of knowledge even if our conscious minds are not that much, if at all.  Thus even if the mortal side of us is reduced to even just an animalistic existence of pain, our greater self is still having opportunities of learning by watching how others interact with us, whether they are contributing to the pain, trying to help, or could care less.  Our minds that we are aware of are a subset of our total mind/spirit/awareness…perhaps part of us are lost in the theatrical parts we are playing while another part is critiquing our performance and adjusting in response to that and the behaviour of other actors in order to keep the play on track, while death brings us fully back to our senses, so to speak.

I can see the effects of the marijuana and ketamine treatments on you, you hippie 😉

(and to be serious, I really like what you wrote. It aligns with my musical experiences and can be translated into the Catholic mystical tradition)

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/19/2022 at 6:55 PM, Olmec Donald said:

"Life is but a dream."

The last verse of the Grateful Dead song “Stella Blue”:

It all rolls into one
And nothing comes for free
There's nothing you can hold
For very long
And when you hear that song
Come crying like the wind
It seems like all this life 
Was just a dream
Stella Blue

 

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/19/2022 at 7:08 PM, Olmec Donald said:

What if when the curtain comes down we see that it was a play, a REALLY convincing and educational play, and that nothing real has been lost?

You’re just making me quote my favorite everything as replies to you. From Shakespeare‘a As You Like It:

All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players;

They have their exits and their entrances;

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Then Wilcox is the wrong target. They should be seeking an audience with Kevin Worthen, or the VP of diversity and inclusion. And if they wanted a large,broad audience, a Rel 250 class also wasn't the target audience.

My guess is they have probably already had meetings with the VP as they are an approved student club and would be a valuable resource in diversity discussions.  However, Brother Worthen or the VP are not going out and giving youth firesides all over the US and Canada and possibly the world as far as I know though at least Worthen gives plenty of speeches at BYU….but when was the last one he gave on faith crises or dealing with church controversy? And even if they have impact at BYU Provo, they are not one of the presidency for the global young men organization in the Church, nor—most important—are they the current focus of a viral (among members at least) controversy.  Tons more current PR value in engaging with Brother Wilcox.  And given his current situation, they actually have significant leverage to push for an meaningful encounter where a meeting with the other two would likely if it ever happened would be simply about sharing concerns with not much chance to change the narrative.  How different will it be, how noticeable if Brother Wilcox starts teaching something different in firesides and in his books than he previously did where we ( meaning general membership) I am guessing don’t even know what Worthen or the VP’s opinion about the Priesthood Ban is.

Quote

If they wanted to have a historic,public event that launches sweeping changes at BYU,

Where was it said what they were interested was about sweeping changes at BYU?

Edited February 21, 2022 by Calm

[kimpearson]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

I really hope that the visibility of this episode forces those who are still churning out false information to think twice. It isn't like people can claim they didn't know any better, there are too many people willing to let them know. I also think Bro. Wilcox is handling this as well as could be expected and that some good will come of it. 

 

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This took place in June of 2017. I'm currently nearing the end and am pleased with the dialogue. Very good listen! Brad explains our religion very well, and makes it sound much more forgiving than some religions out there. 

 

So I would be curios if you think the way Brad shared his experience from Idaho Falls in 2017 was related accurately to the youth of the Alpine stake in February of 2022.  It starts about 1 minute into the above clip.

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/19/2022 at 6:55 PM, Olmec Donald said:

"Row row row your boat"  Whose boat are you supposed to row?  Your own.  Is somebody else supposed to row it for you?  No.

One more Grateful Dead reference: their song “Row Jimmy”

Here’s the chorus:

And I say row, Jimmy row
Gonna get there?
I don't know
Seems a common way to go
Get down, row, row, row
Row, row

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Then Wilcox is the wrong target. They should be seeking an audience with Kevin Worthen, or the VP of diversity and inclusion. And if they wanted a large,broad audience, a Rel 250 class also wasn't the target audience.

If they wanted to have a historic,public event that launches sweeping changes at BYU, they should say that instead of pretend that they just want to have a dialogue with Wilcox. I think their reaction to "keeping it small" and non-public is a good way to smoke out how sincere the initial request was, and if there is a bigger agenda. 

If this initial, small talk goes well (or not), that could lead to the larger audience they seek,but I think they should insist on starting there. Like the counsel in scripture to "take thy brother between him and thee" instead of airing things out publicly. At least as a starting point.

I'd also like to see Wilcox be able to get on with his life, job, etc. and not have to face mobs indefinitely or constantly be drawn into things like this.

I think Wilcox makes sense as a target. 

[Paloma]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'll have to listen to it.

Brad is known to have a good relationship with a lot of religious people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He's more complex that the Alpine talk makes him seem (and more complex than some people want to allow).

I started listening to this 2017 video as I wanted to get a more complete and nuanced sense of Brad Wilcox.

He comes across as congenial and respectful in this conversational forum, from what I've seen and heard so far.

At about the 40 minute mark which is as far as I got and as much as I'll cover tonight, Brad seems to me to be asking for a compassionate understanding of his faith.  I found this poignant, as I'm not at all sure about his desire to compassionately assess the faith of others.

Brad has professed a deep, personal and intimate faith in God as Father that I take at face value.  I believe he is sincere and passionate in his faith.  I found myself talking silently to him saying "I believe you.  I just wish you could know that other Christians - for instance, I myself - also have this deeply personal intimate relationship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."  The teaching in Scripture about our being united with Christ - He in us and we in Him - such as we find in John 17 and in Colossians - is real for us.  We too feel that internal witness of God's love that's as real as our next breath - as a hug, as Brad says.

I delight to hear these words of Brad.  I believe them.  I rejoice in his deep relationship with the Father.

But I'm also recognizing that he (and perhaps he'd admit this himself) like so many of us, has a long way to go in living out the fruit of God's Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22).  

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Tons more current PR value in engaging with Brother Wilcox.  And given his current situation, they actually have significant leverage to push for an meaningful encounter where a meeting with the other two would likely if it ever happened would be simply about sharing concerns with not much chance to change the narrative.  

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think Wilcox makes sense as a target. 

If the real agenda is "tons more PR value" and using "significant leverage to push for an meaningful encounter" beyond "simply about sharing concerns with not much chance to change the narrative," then seeking to co-opt his class (wearing all black for solidarity) and getting the story out on KUTV makes a lot of sense. If they really did "just want a dialogue" with Wilcox, then taking their brother between him and thee would have happened (i.e., out of the public eye). 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Where was it said what they were interested was about sweeping changes at BYU?

Nate Byrd: " It’s been very difficult to incite any change at BYU. It’s very difficult to have them make any changes regarding equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging . . . So this is our opportunity to . . . create some change.” 

My question is, there has been a lot of movement in the last year in the direction Byrd wants re: "equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging" at BYU. Whatever he's unhappy with, Wilcox has no power or authority over. So, why seek a high-profile "fight" with Wilcox in the media (let's be honest, this has nothing to do with "just a dialogue" with Wilcox)? It's to twist BYU's arm about . . . what? Whatever it is they want that BYU isn't doing, Wilcox can't give to them, but they hope to leverage media coverage from their "dialogue" with Wilcox to force BYU's hand about something(s).

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the real agenda is "tons more PR value" and using "significant leverage to push for an meaningful encounter" beyond "simply about sharing concerns with not much chance to change the narrative," then seeking to co-opt his class (wearing all black for solidarity) and getting the story out on KUTV makes a lot of sense. If they really did "just want a dialogue" with Wilcox, then taking their brother between him and thee would have happened (i.e., out of the public eye). 

Nate Byrd: " It’s been very difficult to incite any change at BYU. It’s very difficult to have them make any changes regarding equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging . . . So this is our opportunity to . . . create some change.” 

My question is, there has been a lot of movement in the last year in the direction Byrd wants re: "equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging" at BYU. Whatever he's unhappy with, Wilcox has no power or authority over. So, why seek a high-profile "fight" with Wilcox in the media (let's be honest, this has nothing to do with "just a dialogue" with Wilcox)? It's to twist BYU's arm about . . . what? Whatever it is they want that BYU isn't doing, Wilcox can't give to them, but they hope to leverage media coverage from their "dialogue" with Wilcox to force BYU's hand about something(s).

I’m not sure why he would choose the word “incite,” but inciting destroys dialog and councils. Whatever the reason, he could use a good faculty advisor/coach/mentor who can give him as much constructive feedback and guidance as Brother Wilcox can apparently use.

I think a public forum for the discussion with Brother Wilcox, as well as deliberations in the Committee on Race, Equity & Belonging and workgroups (C-SPAN style) is fine, but there is a lot of competition out there and a lot of studying (  ) going on.

Edited February 21, 2022 by CV75

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure why he would choose the word “incite,” but inciting destroys dialog and councils.

While some definitions of incite are negative, not all are. 
 

Quote

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

If the real agenda is "tons more PR value" and using "significant leverage to push for an meaningful encounter" beyond "simply about sharing concerns with not much chance to change the narrative," then seeking to co-opt his class (wearing all black for solidarity) and getting the story out on KUTV makes a lot of sense. If they really did "just want a dialogue" with Wilcox, then taking their brother between him and thee would have happened (i.e., out of the public eye). 

Nate Byrd: " It’s been very difficult to incite any change at BYU. It’s very difficult to have them make any changes regarding equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging . . . So this is our opportunity to . . . create some change.” 

My question is, there has been a lot of movement in the last year in the direction Byrd wants re: "equity, inclusion, diversity, belonging" at BYU. Whatever he's unhappy with, Wilcox has no power or authority over. So, why seek a high-profile "fight" with Wilcox in the media (let's be honest, this has nothing to do with "just a dialogue" with Wilcox)? It's to twist BYU's arm about . . . what? Whatever it is they want that BYU isn't doing, Wilcox can't give to them, but they hope to leverage media coverage from their "dialogue" with Wilcox to force BYU's hand about something(s).

We’ll have to agree to disagree. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

While some definitions of incite are negative, not all are. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

I can appreciate that, and wouldn’t make him an offender for a word. But like most student body presidents, I think he can afford some guidance in exercising his leadership and communication skills.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite further offers synonyms and examples:

___

Synonyms for incite

Synonyms abet, brew, ferment, foment, instigate, pick, provoke, raise, stir (up), whip (up)

Visit the Thesaurus for More Choose the Right Synonym for incite

INCITE, INSTIGATE, ABET, FOMENT mean to spur to action. INCITE stresses a stirring up and urging on, and may or may not imply initiating.  inciting a riot  INSTIGATE definitely implies responsibility for initiating another's action and often connotes underhandedness or evil intention.  instigated a conspiracy  ABET implies both assisting and encouraging.  aiding and abetting the enemy  FOMENT implies persistence in goading.  fomenting rebellion 

Examples of incite in a Sentence

•  The news incited widespread fear and paranoia.
• the rock band's failure to show up incited a riot, as the crowd had waited for hours

Recent Examples on the Web

• Both of these novels are quite emotionally fraught and guaranteed to incite reactions in readers for a variety of different reasons.— Seija Rankin, EW.com, 27 Jan. 2022
• In May 2020, three people claiming to be Boogaloo adherents allegedly conspired to attack an electrical substation in Las Vegas as part of an attempt to incite riots and violence amid demonstrations in the city.— Geneva Sands, CNN, 25 Jan. 2022

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'incite.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

___

Edited February 21, 2022 by CV75

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

I agree with the no recording. 

Regardless of whether one is in favor or against recording, we live in a world where you have to assume anything you say publicly is being recorded.

And, if you just assume no one is recording, you will be the one without a recorded copy of what transpired.

 

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Paloma said:

I started listening to this 2017 video as I wanted to get a more complete and nuanced sense of Brad Wilcox.

He comes across as congenial and respectful in this conversational forum, from what I've seen and heard so far.

At about the 40 minute mark which is as far as I got and as much as I'll cover tonight, Brad seems to me to be asking for a compassionate understanding of his faith.  I found this poignant, as I'm not at all sure about his desire to compassionately assess the faith of others.

Brad has professed a deep, personal and intimate faith in God as Father that I take at face value.  I believe he is sincere and passionate in his faith.  I found myself talking silently to him saying "I believe you.  I just wish you could know that other Christians - for instance, I myself - also have this deeply personal intimate relationship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."  The teaching in Scripture about our being united with Christ - He in us and we in Him - such as we find in John 17 and in Colossians - is real for us.  We too feel that internal witness of God's love that's as real as our next breath - as a hug, as Brad says.

I delight to hear these words of Brad.  I believe them.  I rejoice in his deep relationship with the Father.

But I'm also recognizing that he (and perhaps he'd admit this himself) like so many of us, has a long way to go in living out the fruit of God's Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22).  

I don’t know if you caught one of Brad’s statements. It’s around min 29. But the basic idea was that he mentioned an admiration for the man he’s talking to (I kinda fast forward the intros and haven’t caught his name) that this came from his beliefs in God and that was core to who both of them were…that that was something they held in similarity with each other. Was that kinda what you had in mind? 
 

I’ve gotten around the hour mark. I’ll comment more once I have breakfast going. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can appreciate that, and wouldn’t make him an offender for a word. But like most student body presidents, I think he can afford some guidance in exercising his leadership and communication skills.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite further offers synonyms and examples:

___

Synonyms for incite

Synonyms abet, brew, ferment, foment, instigate, pick, provoke, raise, stir (up), whip (up)

Visit the Thesaurus for More Choose the Right Synonym for incite

INCITE, INSTIGATE, ABET, FOMENT mean to spur to action. INCITE stresses a stirring up and urging on, and may or may not imply initiating.  inciting a riot  INSTIGATE definitely implies responsibility for initiating another's action and often connotes underhandedness or evil intention.  instigated a conspiracy  ABET implies both assisting and encouraging.  aiding and abetting the enemy  FOMENT implies persistence in goading.  fomenting rebellion 

Examples of incite in a Sentence

•  The news incited widespread fear and paranoia.
• the rock band's failure to show up incited a riot, as the crowd had waited for hours

Recent Examples on the Web

• Both of these novels are quite emotionally fraught and guaranteed to incite reactions in readers for a variety of different reasons.— Seija Rankin, EW.com, 27 Jan. 2022
• In May 2020, three people claiming to be Boogaloo adherents allegedly conspired to attack an electrical substation in Las Vegas as part of an attempt to incite riots and violence amid demonstrations in the city.— Geneva Sands, CNN, 25 Jan. 2022

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'incite.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

___

Incite is a perfectly acceptable word with little negative connotations on it's own.  What makes the difference is what someone is trying to incite.  You can just as easily try to incite love or acceptance as you can rage or violence.  

This is probably one of those situations where we can give someone the benefit of the doubt until/unless they prove otherwise.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Incite is a perfectly acceptable word with little negative connotations on it's own.  What makes the difference is what someone is trying to incite.  You can just as easily try to incite love or acceptance as you can rage or violence.  

This is probably one of those situations where we can give someone the benefit of the doubt until/unless they prove otherwise.

I'm just going by the source that was offered. I certainly give him the benefit of the doubt given his apparent inexperience, which is why he could use some guidance in his leadership and communication skills. Brother Wilcox is very experienced and still needs some guidance, for that matter.

[Paloma]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don’t know if you caught one of Brad’s statements. It’s around min 29. But the basic idea was that he mentioned an admiration for the man he’s talking to (I kinda fast forward the intros and haven’t caught his name) that this came from his beliefs in God and that was core to who both of them were…that that was something they held in similarity with each other. Was that kinda what you had in mind? 
 

I’ve gotten around the hour mark. I’ll comment more once I have breakfast going. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Blue Dreams, after reading your post here I've re-listened to some of what I heard last night. Again, I was struck by the earnestness in Brad's manner and the impassioned way he presented his beliefs and wanted Steve to understand his beliefs and his heart.

Yes, I certainly did see mutual respect around the 29 minute mark where Brad said to Steve: "Yes, your belief in God is core to you, as mine is.  Please don't say we believe in a different God, a different Jesus. ... We may see Him differently."  

In those words, I see a plea for understanding, especially when Brad goes on to explain the LDS concept that God is one of many Gods but He is the 'only' God for him (and for all Latter-day Saints) and will be so eternally.  It seems to me in what I've watched so far that Steve is more intent on getting an accurate understanding of the LDS faith than in professing and explaining his own Evangelical faith.

At around 30 minutes and following, Brad says, "I'm seeing Him through what I consider a bigger window.  Your frame is the Bible.  My frame is much larger".  Here, I appreciate that Brad couches his words in some humility when he says "what I consider ...".  In the later video I watched where he's speaking to an LDS audience, he says "Many Christians follow Christ and they follow Him very sincerely but we are the only Christians on this planet who are led by Jesus Christ.  It's one thing to follow Him;  it's another thing to be led by Him.  ... you have to see Christ through a pretty small window when stuck with just reading the Bible."  

I see such a difference in the way he spoke with Steve and in the way he spoke about Steve's faith when Steve wasn't there.  In this segment in the second video, I sensed a tinge of mocking and a definite sense of pitying in his tone.

And I wanted to say:  "How can we live out the oneness in Christ, the fruit of the Spirit, the Sermon on the Mount, the love described in Corinthians 13 without being led by Christ?  Yes, we definitely are led ... by Christ, by His Spirit."  And if I were with Brad, I would make an impassioned plea for him to understand our common core but different beliefs as he is making in the first video with Steve.

In the first video, Brad says, "We see the same God.  We see the same Jesus. We see Him from a little different angle".  There, I see respect and gentleness. 

After minute 37 in the first video, Brad says:  "You're saying 'there's so much space between God and me'.  But for me, God is very close and personal.  His love is so real and so tangible.  We are nurtured by God and nurtured by Christ in a very real way. For me, God is not so far out there that He's not close enough to give me a hug". 

Here, I would say to Brad:  "Amen!  For me and for all of us non-LDS Christians, it's both/and.  Everything you've said is true for me except the implication that seeing God as infinite, above and beyond, immeasurably more than we can understand, negates a close and personal relationship with Him.  It does not negate in the slightest the reality of an intimate relationship with Him as our heavenly Father.  We have intimacy with Jesus and we have His Spirit within us  -  "I have been crucified with Christ;  nevertheless I live; yet not I but Christ lives in me (I could add 'by His Spirit'). Gal. 2: 20-22.

At about minute 39 in the first video, Brad says:  "My suggestion for Evangelicals who are trying to understand Mormons is just think of it as becoming Christlike".  (See his plea for compassionate understanding?)

Again, I say, "Amen, Brad.   Let us all become more Christlike."

Edited February 21, 2022 by Paloma

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Paloma said:

I started listening to this 2017 video as I wanted to get a more complete and nuanced sense of Brad Wilcox.

He comes across as congenial and respectful in this conversational forum, from what I've seen and heard so far.

At about the 40 minute mark which is as far as I got and as much as I'll cover tonight, Brad seems to me to be asking for a compassionate understanding of his faith.  I found this poignant, as I'm not at all sure about his desire to compassionately assess the faith of others.

Brad has professed a deep, personal and intimate faith in God as Father that I take at face value.  I believe he is sincere and passionate in his faith.  I found myself talking silently to him saying "I believe you.  I just wish you could know that other Christians - for instance, I myself - also have this deeply personal intimate relationship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."  The teaching in Scripture about our being united with Christ - He in us and we in Him - such as we find in John 17 and in Colossians - is real for us.  We too feel that internal witness of God's love that's as real as our next breath - as a hug, as Brad says.

I delight to hear these words of Brad.  I believe them.  I rejoice in his deep relationship with the Father.

But I'm also recognizing that he (and perhaps he'd admit this himself) like so many of us, has a long way to go in living out the fruit of God's Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5:22).  

It seems an odd thing to me,even when I was an active LDS believer, the so many Latter-day Saints think there is nothing outside of their faith and religion  that brings spiritual fulfillment, faith and joy.  It really is an arrogant position full of hubris and over the top piety.  Maybe it comes from those who live in Utah and the Mormon bubble more.  Having spend 42 of my 62 years outside Utah maybe has given me a different perspective.  Sure, when I was an LDS believer I thought it was the best. But I knew plenty of other faithful people of other religious sects who loved their tradition and beliefs as I did mine.

[Paloma]

25 minutes ago, Paloma said:

 

After minute 37 in the first video, Brad says:  "You're saying 'there's so much space between God and me'.  But for me, God is very close and personal.  His love is so real and so tangible.  We are nurtured by God and nurtured by Christ in a very real way. For me, God is not so far out there that He's not close enough to give me a hug". 

 

By the way, when Brad said "You're saying 'there's so much space between God and me'", he wasn't repeating anything Steve had said.  Brad was actually misrepresenting the non-LDS Christian position in my view, but Steve didn't interrupt or correct him.  I thought this often as I watched the video (that I've only partially watched so far).  While I was sensing Brad's misapprehension of our beliefs, I also understood Steve's focus on listening rather than correcting.  I probably would have done the same as Steve.

[BlueDreams]

@PalomaI finished the talk while cooking breakfast. 

I think overall it was pretty good. I found myself thinking to myself that I may have worded or thought of things a little differently while largely agreeing. The part I resonated the most with was when Brad talked about grace and covenants. Later on I realized that Brad and Steve (finally learned his name) were probably well suited for each other. Stylistically, his way of communicating his message would work best with Steve. For example I wanted brad to incorporate more scripture into his descriptions....but I also realized that doing so with Steve would likely not go very far as it would then turn more into a debate of what is the correct interpretation rather than better understanding each others views. 

Brad multiple times used the word "more" to notice certain things. I think that word is important in incorporating his shoddy descriptions of pretending or playing religion in his other talk as well as leaving the church leading to losing out on everything (summarizing). In some ways I agree with Brad. From the comparison point of say Steve, I do believe we have more understanding one certain points/principles. Of course Steve would probably just see this as wrong, misled, or a drastic differences that leaves our christian label extremely questionable, based on some of his commentary.  But there's a reason I'm still LDS and not another faith...there's stuff here I deeply value that there's not enough of an equivalent for in other Christian faiths. They're things I find deeply important and would definitely feel like a loss in giving them up or changing them. I think of one of my first experiences in a couple of other churches. One was an open space, study literally however and whatever you want (the lobby literally had just about every book of basically every holy writ known to humanity in the modern era). I was used to sacred space in itself filling me with light and I'm a fairly open person in experiencing other means of worship. So I plopped myself down on a meditation pillow, crossed my legs, and prayed....and felt nothing from the space. It was weird. Not my usual. But in the space itself, there wasn't anything particularly special...I had to bring an experience of God. Soon after I went to an interesting christian sanctuary. It was one that held the frame of an ancient building within a larger modern one with the history of the ancient church they mirrored this frame on introducing you to the sanctuary. It was architecturally intriguing. Again I sat and felt little from the building, but I looked around and felt what I was used to feeling in the people earnestly seeking God in this space. (to note, there was no one actively worshipping/meditating who actively participate in the other worship site). My teen self at the time likely focused on what was missing. My older self focuses more on what was there that did bring the Spirit. Both are still true to me to some degree and incorporated into my spiritual worldview. And I think that's similar to Brad but in a different way. He focuses more on similarity and a genuine earnestness towards God when with someone not of our faith. But when talking about those leaving he then focuses on his sense of deficit...the things one loses out on by leaving Church. And his style of simplistic language and responses really made this patronizing to those outside the church that I don't think he fully believes where people are pretending or are infantile in their religious practice without priesthood (at least I hope not).

That's at least how I'm integrating the two things together. 

On another note, I was taken aback/surprised by Steve's response to "second chances" after we die. He essentially said such an idea "scares us to death." Following that up with a sense of urgency to share the gospel/jesus with everyone because there was a definitive end point called death. He mentions vaguely leaving final judgment to God and that he would likely be surprised by who's there or not there. But I find the juxtaposition interesting/conflicting to me. To me it still inadvertently leaves to a form of judging where a person is with God via both whether the believe in christ as savior and how they believe that (as in, whether it matches up on what he defines as core presumptions of faith within all christians sects). I'm curious if you have/had a similar sense of urgency or concern or if it's more connected with certain variations of christianity. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Paloma]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems an odd thing to me,even when I was an active LDS believer, the so many Latter-day Saints think there is nothing outside of their faith and religion  that brings spiritual fulfillment, faith and joy.  It really is an arrogant position full of hubris and over the top piety.  Maybe it comes from those who live in Utah and the Mormon bubble more.  Having spend 42 of my 62 years outside Utah maybe has given me a different perspective.  Sure, when I was an LDS believer I thought it was the best. But I knew plenty of other faithful people of other religious sects who loved their tradition and beliefs as I did mine.

Thank you for this openness to understanding, Teancum.  

I see this openness and generosity of spirit in many people on this forum.  

I don't have a problem with LDS believers believing their faith is the best.  And, while it's uncomfortable and sometimes even painful for 'other Christians', I can understand their thinking it's the "only" true church.  When one is committed to understanding the distinctive beliefs of a faith, I think we have to accept that's where the individual believers find themselves.

I am thankful for the openness, humility and respect that I see in so many here - in a sense, despite the 'onlyism' that I think is inherent in their beliefs.  And I don't see that as in any way betraying or going against their devotion to their own faith.  I see it as a deeper form of Christlikeness where God's heart reveals and inspires an inclusiveness born of love, hope and grace.