Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have someone in mind? What would they do differently?

No one in particular. I just see the “rising generation” as being more compassionate and empathetic towards women, POC, and LGBTQ+ than the older generation.

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Pick me! I would have Thread banned him! And not even tell him why.  Because that’s what I’d do.   Although I suspect he still wouldn’t know exactly what is wrong with the talk if I gave a reason.  
 

-Nemesis 

I see what you did there:)

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Except this wasn't correlated lesson content. It was an unvetted (and I assume unscripted) fireside.

There's more than that binary. He has a long history with sunday school and youth in the church and is a BYU academic. You'd have to ask the Alpine West Stake President why Brad was there.

Did Brad Wilcox get parts of his messages wrong and has he been getting  parts wrong for some time.. yes, horribly so. That actually pretty much true of all the General Authorities and Officers (we could go back and talk about the Flood, Evolution, Cosmology, Biblical scholarship, etc. etc. where various erroneous opinions have been held and preached through the decades). What's rather amazing to me is how generally consistent the messaging of the Church is despite numerous unvetted talks. The errors of men, to me, seem to be happening less frequently than before. This is a positive sign.

Brad Wilcox has been chastened and corrected. Let's hope it sticks and that each of us would similarly be susceptible to correction... though if this board is any indication, that requires a lot of optimism on my part to hope for :P.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Nofear

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Not having authority is not the same as pretending to be a church, nor is it pretending to gather together to worship.

A closer analogy from the POV of a belief the Church is the one true and living church with priesthood keys would be you it seems to me are saying we teach other churches are like kids playing at being doctors while we are the only ones with actual medical treatments, while I think of our church as the ones that have authority to operate in hospitals, etc while other churches offer medical treatments that are recognized as helpful in many ways (my own personal opinion is they may be better at teaching certain aspects of the gospel****) and may even be better , but they don’t require a medical license (acupuncture, massage therapy, nutrition) and they would not be qualified to receive a license without going through our official medical school and thus they are insufficient for a full medical support system.  But other churches don’t see a need to have a license to practice medicine as they see what they offer as all that is needed to heal, so they aren’t pretending to be us.  They are fulfilling the way of healing as they understand it to exist.  And in their view, we are a self anointed medical school offering a license that isn’t necessary…like how some doctors think about any certificate to practice chiropractic medicine is bogus.

***I think medical schools do a dismal job of teaching nutrition and it would do a tremendous benefit to their patients if doctors had more training in nutrition.  I can see using the analogy that the Church might have an area of neglect like nutrition has been neglected by MDs and there may be other churches that are great at teaching nutrition.

You're right, that is a better analogy.

I think it's probably pretty obvious that I don't believe other church's are "pretending" but that is the exact point Wilcox went out of his way to make. And in my opinion that is sentiment is derived from the teachings of the church regarding the "one" true church. I don't think Wilcox is alone in thinking that other church's are "pretend" or "counterfeit" or worse, the "whore of all the earth".

I've personally witnessed church members treating non temple weddings as a "cute" attempt at a real eternal marriage. I know people who have bragged about having NEVER attended another non-LDS church for services. Why would that be considered a positive thing by some.

Wilcox's talk was based in historically awful LDS teachings about race, and gender, and being the only "true" church. When I hear people say that the church never taught any of those negative things it just comes across to me as gaslighting, and I don't use that term lightly.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

So all of us active members who don't agree with Wilcox's talk now eschew what we have been taught?  That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.  And I've never been taught to think about women or other Christian religions in the way that Wilcox presented them.  I've heard plenty of members (and I've heard ex-members in a similar vein when talking about members or other religious people) say that kind of stuff outside of church but I've never heard it taught in church in any kind of an official way. 

When it has been presented in lessons by a teacher or member of the class, I've seen the pushback be immediate.  It's probably not like that in all wards but it has been in the ones that I've been a member of, when it has happened (which hasn't been very often thankfully).

I think that Wilcox was doing that thing that we all do sometimes (which doesn't make it right) where we get a little snarky or try to be a little too funny describing someone or something that we don't agree with, when we are with our 'friends' and we don't think the other person will ever hear us.  Only it was completely inappropriate because 1) of the venue and because 2) of who he is and who he represents and because 3) I think that kind of venting is only acceptable in private when it's followed up by acknowledgement that that's exactly what you were doing--venting--and you acknowledge it's a biased representation coming from a place of frustration.

The ideas and doctrines behind what Wilcox said (most of them anyway) are based on things taught in church but the way that he interpreted them and presented them are not the doctrines or teachings of the church.  I have been a member for 30+ years, lived in 7 different states, and double that many wards, and his caricatures of women and other Christian religions have not been taught in the church to me during that time.

But at the same time, I do hope that this whole situation serves as a wake up call for people who have expressed those kinds of sentiments at church, either as a teacher going rogue, or in a class making a comment, or who harbor them in their hearts.  Because they obviously exist and we need to do better.

Then your experience is far different than mine. Those attitudes have been ever-present as part of the culture as well as direct teachings from the pulpit. It is not hard to find racist teachings in the church. It's just not. It's not hard to find sexist teachings in the church. It's not hard to find negative teachings about other churches, whether it be about them not having authority, or paying their clergy or being counterfeit etc. I've had people tell me it would be far better if all LDS apostates simply abandoned all religion instead of finding a new Christian denomination to attend. And my experience is in no way unique.

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right, that is a better analogy.

I think it's probably pretty obvious that I don't believe other church's are "pretending" but that is the exact point Wilcox went out of his way to make. And in my opinion that is sentiment is derived from the teachings of the church regarding the "one" true church. I don't think Wilcox is alone in thinking that other church's are "pretend" or "counterfeit" or worse, the "whore of all the earth".

I've personally witnessed church members treating non temple weddings as a "cute" attempt at a real eternal marriage. I know people who have bragged about having NEVER attended another non-LDS church for services. Why would that be considered a positive thing by some.

Wilcox's talk was based in historically awful LDS teachings about race, and gender, and being the only "true" church. When I hear people say that the church never taught any of those negative things it just comes across to me as gaslighting, and I don't use that term lightly.

I have no more rep points, but we’ll said!

[CA Steve]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I have been a member for 30+ years, lived in 7 different states, and double that many wards, and his caricatures of women and other Christian religions have not been taught in the church to me during that time.

You do realize that you weren't even a member pre-priesthood ban, right? I have listened to both McConkie and Petersen speak live. I served my mission before the ban was lifted and used many of these "caricatures" to explain to potential members what the stance of the church was on these issues. I was at BYU when the ban was lifted.  Claiming to be a member 30 years plus is to have very little understanding of what the church was like in the 50s, 60's and 70's. That is important because the people leading the church today were adults already in those times.

I have been a member for over 60 years, in more states and wards than I can remember. I lived in Provo in the early 60's and again through the 70's and early 80's when the church was facing national censure for its priesthood ban.  I have had long conversations with my father who played and coached at BYU during this same time, who was totally convinced there was no racial motive going on with the ban. I have seen these caricatures taught and believed repeatedly during this time by people who were convinced they had no racial or gender bias. I still have conversations with people in the church who firmly believe there is no gender bias within the church.

Edited February 9, 2022 by CA Steve

[ttribe]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are there more?

Yes. According to David Bokovoy, he heard Brad Wilcox give this same talk over and over again for at least 18 years. This wasn't a one-time error on Wilcox's part; this is his pattern and his set of beliefs.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

… this all but imaginary line between GA and GO. …

If the distinction is still eluding you, it might help you to know that unlike General Authorities, general officers of the Church work at their respective callings part time and continue to be gainfully employed at their respective vocations  — like a typical and dedicated elders quorum president or bishop or Sunday School teacher or ward Primary president. They don’t even put as much time into it as a mission president and companion — or any other full time missionary, for that matter. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Yes. According to David Bokovoy, he heard Brad Wilcox give this same talk over and over again for at least 18 years. This wasn't a one-time error on Wilcox's part; this is his pattern and his set of beliefs.

I suspected this might be a set piece for Bro Wilcox. Looks like he’s being cancelled. I wonder why this has just now become an issue. Who recorded and posted this?

There was a fellow in our ward who had been a very good violinist, but advancing years had taken an embarrassing toll on his playing. I asked Sister Gui to let me know when that happened to me so I could hang up the fiddle with some dignity left. That time has now come and she has reminded me that it would be better to sit back in the violin section and not stand out in front playing the concerto. 

An 18 year old talk may not serve any more.

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

You do realize that you weren't even a member pre-priesthood ban, right? I have listened to both McConkie and Petersen speak live. I served my mission before the ban was lifted and used many of these "caricatures" to explain to potential members what the stance of the church was on these issues. I was at BYU when the ban was lifted.  Claiming to be a member 30 years plus is to have very little understanding of what the church was like in the 50s, 60's and 70's. That is important because the people leading the church today were adults already in those times.

I have been a member for over 60 years, in more states and wards than I can remember. I lived in Provo in the early 60's and again through the 70's and early 80's when the church was facing national censure for its priesthood ban.  I have had long conversations with my father who played and coached at BYU during this same time, who was totally convinced there was no racial motive going on with the ban. I have seen these caricatures taught and believed repeatedly during this time by people who were convinced they had no racial or gender bias. I still have conversations with people in the church who firmly believe there is no gender bias within the church.

Wait, what?  I wasn't even a member pre-ban??  That is news to me.

I do realize that I wasn't a member during that time, and that's why I was very careful to say that those things haven't been taught to me during my time at church.  I never implied that they haven't been taught ever at church.  I know they were.

And to be clearer, I also acknowledged that I'm sure these kinds of things are taught sometimes still, or such opinions are expressed by members (who are behind the times, or miss the glory of the "good old days"), but in my experience it is few and far between, never comes from a church source, and is shut down when it happens in a lesson.

All of that leads me to believe that the stuff that Bro. Wilcox expressed is not "church teachings".  They were his interpretation of church teachings, and that they are red flags to so many members means to me that members are not at all used to hearing this kind of stuff over the pulpit or being taught to their kids.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then your experience is far different than mine. Those attitudes have been ever-present as part of the culture as well as direct teachings from the pulpit. It is not hard to find racist teachings in the church. It's just not. It's not hard to find sexist teachings in the church. It's not hard to find negative teachings about other churches, whether it be about them not having authority, or paying their clergy or being counterfeit etc. I've had people tell me it would be far better if all LDS apostates simply abandoned all religion instead of finding a new Christian denomination to attend. And my experience is in no way unique.

I've only lived in Utah for 8 years, so that might also explain some of the differences in our experiences growing up.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Could you explain? I don’t know how the comment confirms your belief. You think he was ordered to give this talk this way? I think this is on him. Would love to compare his words with the same topics covered by others. 

It's not always fair, but leaders often have to answer for and take responsibility for the things subordinates say and do. The evidence that he has given this same talk before would indicate that Wilcox's leaders would/should be aware of what he is saying, so the fact that he is still out there saying the same things reflects on the leadership above him.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is hard to believe that someone told him to go out and present views that are not consistent with the Church.   Nothing would be gained by that but only more problems to deal with.  Wilcox probably is a nice guy who has a good testimony but has some wrong views on things.  He was trusted to give a good talk and instead went off on stuff that was not desired.  I think that is something every bishop worries about when they assign a talk to a member.   You never really know what they are going to say.  99% of the time there is no problem but occasionally....

But Wilcox isn't the average member in a ward assigned to give a talk. He was specifically invited or assigned to give this presentation. He is a church leader. The things he presents should not be a surprise to those in leadership positions above him because he has shared the same message before. Either his leaders like his approach and agreed with his message or they were derelict in their responsibility to supervise his actions and language. He is not a low-level flunky spouting off crazy ideas without warning. He works at the highest levels of church government in a very responsible calling. It blows my mind that people are defending his words as being either "no big deal" or simply "inarticulate". This talk illustrates a number of beliefs from which I believe the church should distance itself. 

And yes, his leaders bear some responsibility as well for continuing to send him out there. I have to believe that everywhere he gives this talk testimonies are shattering amongst the youth. It is that bad.

[Bernard Gui]

Speaking from sad experience, Ecclesiastes 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor.

I suppose we all experience this to some extent. I wonder what the charitable response would be for Bro Wilcox? He certainly has been publicly judged. Now what?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Speaking from sad experience, Ecclesiastes 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor.

I suppose we all experience this to some extent. I wonder what the charitable response would be for Bro Wilcox? He certainly has been publicly judged. Now what?

I think the greater concern should be towards those harmed by Wilcox’s actions. What actions are being taken to rectify that? 

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the greater concern should be towards those harmed by Wilcox’s actions. What actions are being taken to rectify that? 

Bro Wilcox is also a child of God. What would you suggest?

[Durangout]

This was BY FAR the worst church talk I’ve ever witness in my 57 yrs of membership.  The errors, unsubstantiated bad opinions, the mischaracterizations, the condescension towards others and their religions, the screaming, the cringe…he really should know better.

I think I know what the problem here is, and it’s the same disease that some Stake Presidents develop after 2 - 3 yrs in tenure.  Let me explain:

Wilcox really got “put on the map” with his wonderful talk on Grace.  His explanation / talk was far better than any apostle’s on the subject that I’d heard.  He became popular; everybody wanted to be in his class; he was in high demand at Women’s (not Girl’s) conference; people told him how great he was—and he began to believe it.   Sadly his self-importance really seems to come through here.  
 

Based on this PERFORMANCE and the many years of teaching the same bad opinions, he should be replaced in the YM’s presidency.  Hopefully he can learn from  this and “be better”.  

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've only lived in Utah for 8 years, so that might also explain some of the differences in our experiences growing up.

 

I've only lived in Utah for a few years while going to BYU. Otherwise I've never lived there so all of my experiences are from various regions of the US.

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suspected this might be a set piece for Bro Wilcox. Looks like he’s being cancelled. I wonder why this has just now become an issue. Who recorded and posted this?

There was a fellow in our ward who had been a very good violinist, but advancing years had taken an embarrassing toll on his playing. I asked Sister Gui to let me know when that happened to me so I could hang up the fiddle with some dignity left. That time has now come and she has reminded me that it would be better to sit back in the violin section and not stand out in front playing the concerto. 

An 18 year old talk may not serve any more.

 

Does it really matter "why now?" Maybe the question we should be asking is "why did it take until now  for the whites to oppose..." Wait...I got confused for a moment. Sorry.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I've only lived in Utah for a few years while going to BYU. Otherwise I've never lived there so all of my experiences are from various regions of the US.

Does it really matter "why now?" Maybe the question we should be asking is "why did it take until now  for the whites to oppose..." Wait...I got confused for a moment. Sorry.

Not looking for a fight HJW. Just want to understand.

[ttribe]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I suspected this might be a set piece for Bro Wilcox. Looks like he’s being cancelled. I wonder why this has just now become an issue. Who recorded and posted this?

There was a fellow in our ward who had been a very good violinist, but advancing years had taken an embarrassing toll on his playing. I asked Sister Gui to let me know when that happened to me so I could hang up the fiddle with some dignity left. That time has now come and she has reminded me that it would be better to sit back in the violin section and not stand out in front playing the concerto. 

An 18 year old talk may not serve any more.

 

If he's outright wrong and no one has addressed this previously, it's not a matter of 'canceling,' it's a matter of correction. As to being judged, that's the unfortunate reality when we don't revise our beliefs and statements to reflect new information.

As to recording and posting, it's my recollection that this was recorded by the stake where it was presented and posted in the ordinary course. I don't believe it was someone in the audience, especially given how close the camera is to the speaker and how steady it is; it was apparently on some kind of mount.

As to a charitable response, I believe David Bokovoy also provided an example wherein he stated on his Facebook page today: "Wilcox always struck me as a kind person that truly loves people. I wish he was free to be that person." David Bokovoy made the point that it's the system that is broken and Wilcox is working within the system that perpetuated these things.

Edited February 9, 2022 by ttribe

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've only lived in Utah for a few years while going to BYU. Otherwise I've never lived there so all of my experiences are from various regions of the US.

Does it really matter "why now?" Maybe the question we should be asking is "why did it take until now  for the whites to oppose..." Wait...I got confused for a moment. Sorry.

I actually think the "why now" is a really important question.  If he's been doing this same talk for years why have no members until this one been upset?  I have no good answer to that question but I'm seriously wondering.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If he's outright wrong and no one has addressed this previously, it's not a matter of 'canceling,' it's a matter of correction. As to being judged, that's the unfortunate reality when we don't revise our beliefs and statements to reflect new information.

As to recording and posting, it's my recollection that this was recorded by the stake where it was shown and posted in the ordinary course. I don't believe it was someone in the audience, especially given how close the camera is to the speaker and how steady it is; it was apparently on some kind of mount.

As to a charitable response, I believe David Bokovoy also provided an example wherein he stated on his Facebook page today: "Wilcox always struck me as a kind person that truly loves people. I wish he was free to be that person." David Bokovoy made the point that it's the system that is broken and Wilcox is working within the system that perpetuated these things.

I agree the system may be broken. Popular speakers and celebrities may not be the best way to move Zion forward. We certainly are not of one heart and mind now. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not looking for a fight HJW. Just want to understand.

Sorry- I'm not looking for a fight either. Just saw an opportunity to amuse myself with a comment  

Quote

Bluebell

I actually think the "why now" is a really important question.  If he's been doing this same talk for years why have no members until this one been upset?  I have no good answer to that question but I'm seriously wondering.

Honestly, the "why now" question seems fairly straight forward to me. The prevalence of recording talks like these due to covid (if not simply the ubiquity of mobile phones) combined with the rapidly changing societal mores both inside and outside the church, seem to make it an opportune time for things to come into the open. Our words and deeds will be shouted from the rooftops. I think everyone should be very cognizant of their words and behaviors in virtually every setting, because things will be seen/heard and recorded, and shared. There is no anonymity for our behavior. If I behave badly in my little town that bad behavior could be spread far and wide. I have to accept and expect that.

This reality makes the opportunity for spreading goodness or badness, beyond our regular/expected spheres of influence, very likely. And we can't really make the argument that someone shouldn't have recorded or shared. The truth is, if it was bad, we shouldn't have said or did it. It's the actions and words that cause the problem, not the fact that they are shared. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, Durangout said:

This was BY FAR the worst church talk I’ve ever witness in my 57 yrs of membership.  The errors, unsubstantiated bad opinions, the mischaracterizations, the condescension towards others and their religions, the screaming, the cringe…he really should know better.

I think I know what the problem here is, and it’s the same disease that some Stake Presidents develop after 2 - 3 yrs in tenure.  Let me explain:

Wilcox really got “put on the map” with his wonderful talk on Grace.  His explanation / talk was far better than any apostle’s on the subject that I’d heard.  He became popular; everybody wanted to be in his class; he was in high demand at Women’s (not Girl’s) conference; people told him how great he was—and he began to believe it.   Sadly his self-importance really seems to come through here.  
 

Based on this PERFORMANCE and the many years of teaching the same bad opinions, he should be replaced in the YM’s presidency.  Hopefully he can learn from  this and “be better”.  

I agree with this. Sister Gui noted that something may be wrong health or age wise, but if this is a talk he has delivered multiple times and with the same passions, perhaps it is time for a change.