G.O.S.P.E.L. Explained by Brad Wilcox

[Sara H]

In this address, Brother Brad Wilcox, who is sustained as the First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency, breaks down the blessings of Christ gospel that you can only discover in the LDS church. The LDS church is the only place where you can get these blessings according to him. He accomplishes this by subdividing the meaning of the word gospel into six distinct groups. G is for Godhead. O is for Only true church. The letter S stands for Spirit. The letter P is for Priesthood. E is for Everyone. L is for Living Prophets. In spite of the fact that this presentation was done in front of a group of young people, I believe that it is an excellent address that explains how we view our gospel in comparison to other Christian gospels. Watching this video is beneficial for LDS viewers as well as those who are not members of the church. If you don't have time to view the whole video, the breakdown begins at the twenty two minute mark. 

 

There are many aspects of what he describes that are accurate, but it is undeniable to me that things are much more welcoming now compared to when I was growing up in the church. Is this how everyone else feels as well? 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Sara H

[Duncan]

This is definitely old news and he apologized for his remarks

 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/2/14/23218935/brother-brad-wilcox-offers-second-apology-for-insensitive-hurtful-comments

Edited August 13, 2023 by Duncan

[Sara H]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This is definitely old news and he apologized for his remarks

 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/2/14/23218935/brother-brad-wilcox-offers-second-apology-for-insensitive-hurtful-comments

I am not portraying his talk in a negative light in any way. In point of fact, the content of his address to the youth and the manner in which he delivers it are significantly more inclusive than they were when I was their age. 

[Pyreaux]

We've always generally adhered to a Wider Hope Theory, the gospel/salvation/priesthood is universally accessible (not universally obtained). All non-members, the unevangelized and unbaptized dead, women, those in the past banned from the priesthood, etc. All in the Grand scheme of things are not denied access to any blessing, to salvation, to the priesthood. That has always been. Only, on the earth, today, there is one true church, one true priesthood, with the keys and ability to save everyone. Not to ignore the value of the efforts of other preachers and priests, fostering the faith and blessing the masses we can't reach.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Sara H said:

In this address, Brother Brad Wilcox, who is sustained as the First Counselor in the Young Men General Presidency, breaks down the blessings of Christ gospel that you can only discover in the LDS church. The LDS church is the only place where you can get these blessings according to him. He accomplishes this by subdividing the meaning of the word gospel into six distinct groups. G is for Godhead. O is for Only true church. The letter S stands for Spirit. The letter P is for Priesthood. E is for Everyone. L is for Living Prophets. In spite of the fact that this presentation was done in front of a group of young people, I believe that it is an excellent address that explains how we view our gospel in comparison to other Christian gospels. Watching this video is beneficial for LDS viewers as well as those who are not members of the church. If you don't have time to view the whole video, the breakdown begins at the twenty two minute mark. 

 

There are many aspects of what he describes that are accurate, but it is undeniable to me that things are much more welcoming now compared to when I was growing up in the church. Is this how everyone else feels as well? 

 

 

Why do you think that to you, things are much more welcoming now compared to when you were growing up in the Church? Please specify what "things" you refer to.

[Sara H]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why do you think that to you, things are much more welcoming now compared to when you were growing up in the Church? Please specify what "things" you refer to.

 

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why do you think that to you, things are much more welcoming now compared to when you were growing up in the Church? Please specify what "things" you refer to.

Thanks for asking the question. There are numerous reasons why church is more welcoming now compared to when I was young.  Here's one. 

In the 1960s, a priesthood bulletin from the first presidency recommended only members with the priesthood should be invited to give the opening and closing prayers in sacrament meeting. In the mid 1970s the policy was upheld in the Ensign. Toward the end of the 70s women were finally allowed to pray in sacrament. 2013 women were finally allowed to pray in General Conference.  Can you see how being "allowed" to pray in a meeting you attend weekly makes a woman feel more welcomed? 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

 

Thanks for asking the question. There are numerous reasons why church is more welcoming now compared to when I was young.  Here's one. 

In the 1960s, a priesthood bulletin from the first presidency recommended only members with the priesthood should be invited to give the opening and closing prayers in sacrament meeting. In the mid 1970s the policy was upheld in the Ensign. Toward the end of the 70s women were finally allowed to pray in sacrament. 2013 women were finally allowed to pray in General Conference.  Can you see how being "allowed" to pray in a meeting you attend weekly makes a woman feel more welcomed? 

And the tattoo's and one pair of earrings. The church is focusing more on the inside rather than the outside of a member. My daughter love tattoo's. She even gives herself some besides the professional, she's 38 now. Two Sundays ago she expressed that she wanted to see her grandma, my MIL. Her grandma is a stalwart member of the church and probably has the tape of Pres Hinckley (?) saying to only wear one pair of earrings and no tattoos. Well, I was so excited she wanted to go and we all went for our visit. Her grandma has macular degeneration and can't see well so I thought she wouldn't be able to see them. But she immediately did, my daughter has added quite a few to her arms. And she kept commenting about them trying not to show her disappointment. My husband spoke up in a nice voice and told her the church doesn't speak much about that anymore. But we did go onto having a very nice visit and I was so glad at least one of my kids finally went to see her in her old age at the assistant care center. My kids are all inactive and so some don't feel like they are welcome. But she's never given them that feeling that I know of.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

 

Thanks for asking the question. There are numerous reasons why church is more welcoming now compared to when I was young.  Here's one. 

In the 1960s, a priesthood bulletin from the first presidency recommended only members with the priesthood should be invited to give the opening and closing prayers in sacrament meeting. In the mid 1970s the policy was upheld in the Ensign. Toward the end of the 70s women were finally allowed to pray in sacrament. 2013 women were finally allowed to pray in General Conference.  Can you see how being "allowed" to pray in a meeting you attend weekly makes a woman feel more welcomed? 

Thank you for the example. Of course, I can see anyone's point of view when they share their experience. From your OP, what was your personal experience and point of view in relation to how welcome you felt when you were growing up in the church?

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

 

Thanks for asking the question. There are numerous reasons why church is more welcoming now compared to when I was young.  Here's one. 

In the 1960s, a priesthood bulletin from the first presidency recommended only members with the priesthood should be invited to give the opening and closing prayers in sacrament meeting. In the mid 1970s the policy was upheld in the Ensign. Toward the end of the 70s women were finally allowed to pray in sacrament. 2013 women were finally allowed to pray in General Conference.  Can you see how being "allowed" to pray in a meeting you attend weekly makes a woman feel more welcomed? 

What does that have to do with this talk?  I’m not following any of this. 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Sara H said:

Can you see how being "allowed" to pray in a meeting you attend weekly makes a woman feel more welcomed? 

Deleted. . . . you all have heard it all before.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Navidad
I shouldn't burden the forum with our personal pain.

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

We've always generally adhered to a Wider Hope Theory, the gospel/salvation/priesthood is universally accessible (not universally obtained). All non-members, the unevangelized and unbaptized dead, women, those in the past banned from the priesthood, etc. All in the Grand scheme of things are not denied access to any blessing, to salvation, to the priesthood. That has always been. Only, on the earth, today, there is one true church, one true priesthood, with the keys and ability to save everyone. Not to ignore the value of the efforts of other preachers and priests, fostering the faith and blessing the masses we can't reach.

Hey my friend . . . how is this any different than a "wideness in God's mercy" perspective that is present in many teachings today in many Christian groups? I can't quite get a grip on any LDS uniqueness on this point. Your Wider Hope Theory is based on an eternal perspective, right? So is the Wideness in God's Mercy perspective held by an increasingly large segment of broader Christianity.

[Pyreaux]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hey my friend . . . how is this any different than a "wideness in God's mercy" perspective that is present in many teachings today in many Christian groups? I can't quite get a grip on any LDS uniqueness on this point. Your Wider Hope Theory is based on an eternal perspective, right? So is the Wideness in God's Mercy perspective held by an increasingly large segment of broader Christianity.

I can't find anything about that phrase, it's not just a hymn? "Wider Hope" is not unique, it is a Protestant rejection of historic Calvinistic theology. Its inclusive, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell. However, those destined for heaven will only do so through the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. All who may ultimately be saved will only be saved through him. The LDS uniqueness is, beyond hope, the active role LDS believe they can have in saving the evangelized living and the unevangelized dead with special and unique ordinances we provide and believe only we can provide.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I can't find anything about that phrase, it's not just a hymn? "Wider Hope" is not unique, it is a Protestant rejection of historic Calvinistic theology. Its inclusive, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell. However, those destined for heaven will only do so through the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. All who may ultimately be saved will only be saved through him. The LDS uniqueness is, beyond hope, the active role LDS believe they can have in saving the evangelized living and the unevangelized dead with special and unique ordinances we provide and believe only we can provide.

Thanks for your reply. No, it is not just a hymn. It is a soteriological construct based on Evangelical writings of the early 1990s, that have gained a lot of traction in the non-LDS Christian community, especially among Evangelicals. It is somewhat between universalism and an old school of soteriology that ignores those as lost of all those who have never heard or have rejected the gospel in the eyes of the old-school Fundamentalist Christian community ( I call it a community because it is not a church).  

I understand the methodological differences and differences in construct of the exact nature of eternity between us, but it seems to me the end result of both is eternity with the Father and the Son for a much wider group of humanity than has traditionally been granted. With ordinances, you rely on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ - the work of atonement as being essential. Without ordinances we rely on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ- the work of atonement as being essential.

Just as I have read the debates on this forum among my LDS friends as to exactly how expansive the celestial kingdom will be, so there is similar debate among non-LDS Christians as to exactly how many or who will granted eternal life with Christ and the Father in heaven, however that is defined. There is most likely some degree of exclusivity in both viewpoints, but they end up in the same destination with the Savior and Father.

You might go to the point of believing that without your ordinances in this world or the next my faith is for nought. I might go to the point of believing that your ordinances in this world or the next are for nought. Our shared goal and desire is for eternity with the Father and Son. I think, given those differences we still need each other's prayers and wisdom. I covet your prayers to help me unload this burden I am currently carrying from our ward situation. Whether you believe I should be carrying this burden or not, I am. Supporting each other is what Christian brothers and sisters do, even when we don't understand of affirm each other's pain.

[Sara H]

20 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

What does that have to do with this talk?  I’m not following any of this. 

I was asked nicely to explain why I think the church is more accepting now than it was when I was growing up. I responded in a thoughtful and encouraging manner.  

 

Would you prefer that before I post off-topic on my own thread, I get your approval?

 

[Sara H]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for the example. Of course, I can see anyone's point of view when they share their experience. From your OP, what was your personal experience and point of view in relation to how welcome you felt when you were growing up in the church?

As a child, I was a bit of a tomboy, so I always wanted to do what the boys in my stake did, especially Boy Scouts. I wanted to join the Scouts so badly so I could go camping. On a personal level, that was probably the thing that made me feel the most like I couldn't do what I wanted to do. On a spiritual level, I mostly felt like I was a part of things when it came to questions of doctrine and policy. The only thing I can think of that bothered me back then was that new mothers couldn't hold their babies during the blessing of the child in sacrament. That has always made me sad. I remember thinking that those men didn't have to push that baby out, and who are they to say that a mother can't at least stand in the middle of a prayer circle? 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

As a child, I was a bit of a tomboy, so I always wanted to do what the boys in my stake did, especially Boy Scouts. I wanted to join the Scouts so badly so I could go camping. On a personal level, that was probably the thing that made me feel the most like I couldn't do what I wanted to do. On a spiritual level, I mostly felt like I was a part of things when it came to questions of doctrine and policy. The only thing I can think of that bothered me back then was that new mothers couldn't hold their babies during the blessing of the child in sacrament. That has always made me sad. I remember thinking that those men didn't have to push that baby out, and who are they to say that a mother can't at least stand in the middle of a prayer circle? 

Thank you for sharing your memories from childhood. How is the Church more welcoming now toward tomboys who want to participate in Boy Scouts (I understand we do not sponsor unit troops anymore)? I thought the Handbook still has only men administering the baby blessing; has that changed? In any case, there are always "life and limb" exceptions for protocol, so it would reasonable under extenuating circumstances for the mother to hold the baby, with presiding officer approval, unless I'm not understanding something about this ordinance that would never permit such exceptions.

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

I was asked nicely to explain why I think the church is more accepting now than it was when I was growing up. I responded in a thoughtful and encouraging manner.  

 

Would you prefer that before I post off-topic on my own thread, I get your approval?

 

I’m trying to understand your original post.  
We both (all) know it’s not about approval, it’s about the ability to discuss on a public discussion board and remain on topic. 

[Sara H]

19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m trying to understand your original post.  
We both (all) know it’s not about approval, it’s about the ability to discuss on a public discussion board and remain on topic. 

You're free to open a thread and keep it on topic whenever your heart desires. 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

You're free to open a thread and keep it on topic whenever your heart desires. 

Ok. 

[Tacenda]

I wish Bro Wilcox didn't dumb down, not dumb down, just speak like everyone's in kindergarten.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wish Bro Wilcox didn't dumb down, not dumb down, just speak like everyone's in kindergarten.

His style is definitely not for everyone.  But it is for some, and that's not a bad thing.  There are plenty of other gospel scholars and authorities to choose from when we find one's style grating.   

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

His style is definitely not for everyone.  But it is for some, and that's not a bad thing.  There are plenty of other gospel scholars and authorities to choose from when we find one's style grating.   

He does have his good points too, I know. His books on Grace are great or talks. 

[Sara H]

On 8/14/2023 at 8:27 AM, Tacenda said:

And the tattoo's and one pair of earrings. The church is focusing more on the inside rather than the outside of a member. My daughter love tattoo's. She even gives herself some besides the professional, she's 38 now. Two Sundays ago she expressed that she wanted to see her grandma, my MIL. Her grandma is a stalwart member of the church and probably has the tape of Pres Hinckley (?) saying to only wear one pair of earrings and no tattoos. Well, I was so excited she wanted to go and we all went for our visit. Her grandma has macular degeneration and can't see well so I thought she wouldn't be able to see them. But she immediately did, my daughter has added quite a few to her arms. And she kept commenting about them trying not to show her disappointment. My husband spoke up in a nice voice and told her the church doesn't speak much about that anymore. But we did go onto having a very nice visit and I was so glad at least one of my kids finally went to see her in her old age at the assistant care center. My kids are all inactive and so some don't feel like they are welcome. But she's never given them that feeling that I know of.

My own experience has taught me that tattoos are a huge source of contention for many members of the LDS church, who view them as a form of visible graffiti. I am beginning to grasp, albeit slowly, that we have been trained to literally see certain actions as a sign that someone is a sinner and that we may need to exercise caution around this person. Things like tattoos, coffee, cigarettes, "inappropriate" attire, swearing, along with many more visible or verbal actions that tell us that a certain person may not enjoy the continual companionship of the Holy Ghost so proceed with caution while associating with this person in any capacity. It's extremely unfortunate when some of us LDS's become so rooted in our beliefs at various points in our life that we almost immediately, within just a few seconds of meeting someone, feel as if we already know everything there is to know about a person just based on how they look on the outside. 

When someone breaks away from the teachings of the church and begins to live outside the "safety" of church doctrine, the older generations in my family treat this person as if they don't realize what they're giving up just so they can live a mortal life with a little bit more excitement than when they were a TBM. They regard them as a person who has given up, as someone who has broken a promise they made with God, and as someone who is oblivious to the gravity of the precarious situation they are putting themselves in by continuing down this path. It is almost as if they do not know how to show how much they love the wayward soul because their behaviors and manner are shouting to the wayward soul, Come Back! Their desperation to help return the lost sheep, is what is actually pushing the sheep away. And the wayward soul is able to both feel and watch the disappointment, which drives them to desire to avoid any engagement with family that is still LDS.

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Sara H

[Sara H]

On 8/13/2023 at 4:00 PM, Pyreaux said:

Only, on the earth, today, there is one true church, one true priesthood, with the keys and ability to save everyone. NOT TO IGNORE THE VALUE of the efforts of other preachers and priests, fostering the faith and blessing the masses we can't reach.

But we DO IGNORE anything sacred that isn't taught in our church. In our church, a Christian is baptized and confirmed the same way an atheist is. Does the Christian get to skip the first few missionary lessons because he/she is a Christian, while the atheist has to take all of them? Does the newly baptized Christian get to enter the temple before the newly baptized atheist because of a lifelong Christian background? Not in my experience. 

[Sara H]

On 8/15/2023 at 10:42 AM, CV75 said:

Thank you for sharing your memories from childhood. How is the Church more welcoming now toward tomboys who want to participate in Boy Scouts (I understand we do not sponsor unit troops anymore)? I thought the Handbook still has only men administering the baby blessing; has that changed? In any case, there are always "life and limb" exceptions for protocol, so it would reasonable under extenuating circumstances for the mother to hold the baby, with presiding officer approval, unless I'm not understanding something about this ordinance that would never permit such exceptions.

I think the reason why the whole baby blessing thing gets under my skin so much is because there have been a few times when I have actually seen the mother being granted the permission to stand on the outside of the circle while holding the microphone. This is one of the things that makes the whole process so upsetting to me. I'm sorry, but just typing that statement made me feel a little bit irritated. One of those times, my husband and I went on a trip of a few hours to attend a blessing of my nieces baby girl. She had a very difficult cesarean delivery, and her newborn was monitored in the neonatal intensive care unit for approximately two weeks. I was looking forward to seeing the baby get blessed as she made her way down the aisle of the chapel and then climbed the steps to stand beside the podium; however, as they handed her the microphoneand not the baby, I experienced a feeling of anger that I had never experienced before while I attend church. Even now, I'm not entirely certain that I really comprehend what went on with my feelings on that particular day.