for those catching up, on Sunday night Brad Wilcox gave a Youth Fireside to the Stakes in Alpine Utah. It was available via zoom and subsequently posted to their YouTube page. It has since been removed after parts of it began to go viral. Currently, the actual footage is only available on Mormon Stories’ youtube channel (sigh, of course, side-eye). So if you’d like to see it yourself it’s available there broken up into many smaller pieces (I’m guessing to avoid copyright claims?). The portion I want to address is section #6 “P is for Priesthood.” This is the one I’ve watched in full.
The edited 38-second portion of this that originally went viral is included where he says:
“How come the blacks didn’t get the priesthood until 1978? whats up with that Bro. Wilcox? What Brigham Young was a jerk? Members of the church were prejudiced?” Maybe we’re asking the wrong question. Maybe instead of saying ‘why did the blacks have to wait until 1978?’ maybe what we should be asking is ‘why did the whites and the other races have to wait until 1829? One thousand eight hundred twenty-nine years they waited.
Now, knowing the video was selectively edited I went to the source to see the context. He continues:
And why did the gentiles have to wait until after the Jews? And why did everybody in the house of Israel, except the tribe of Levi, have to wait until …. when you look like it like that — instead of trying to feel like you have to figure out GOd’s timeline, you can just be grateful down to our socks that the blacks received the priesthood in 1978.
Okay, so YES he used very poor phraseology (the blacks, what about the whites?) — beyond that, it was a racist framing of the issue. He was using the “what about the whites” question to show it was in a list of questions that don’t matter — meaning he was precisely saying that the question “why didn’t the blacks receive the priesthood until 1978” didn’t matter because the only thing that matters is the Lord’s timing. That is racist framing. It matters to nearly every black LDS member I know and ignores the very real and diligent scholarship that’s been done on the issue. Later that night he issued an apology on his Facebook page for “a serious mistake last night, and I am truly sorry. The illustration I attempted to use about the timing of the revelation on the priesthood for Black members was wrong. I’ve reviewed what I said and I recognize that what I hoped to express about trusting God’s timing did NOT come through as I intended.” It was a racist framing of the issue, but not in the least because of how he thinks it was.
Would he be surprised to realize that although his framing is offensive, so too is his justification for the ban (also completely skipping the issue that Joseph DID ordain black men to the priesthood, and 1978 was a restoration of the original practice)? He is either 1 – ignorant of current scholarship and the mounting evidence of the racist justifications of the practice or 2 – is aware of it and his pride rejects it out of hand?? Is it possible he isn’t aware of it? because I will send him a copy of Paul Reeve’s book for free.
In this #6 clip he also talks about how his children used to “play church” and that is what all of the other religions do because they have no real authority. “Play Church.” I would wonder what the NAACP or other leaders we try to do interfaith work with would feel about this clip?
He also addresses the “women and the priesthood” issue by telling stupid stories and ultimately justifying it via pedistalization: “have *you* wondered why women can just *waltz* right into the temple without needing priesthood ordination?” Why no, in my 40 years I’ve never heard the genius idea that women are somehow specialer and more angelic and nearer to heaven and not awful dirt of the earth men who need all of these priesthood keys to open curtains for us or some other nonsense. (He also closes the fireside by threatening the youth with LOSING EVERYTHING if they leave. EVERYTHING!!)
I have many issues with *just* this 6 minute clip, let alone the rest of the fireside.
I guess what I am here to say is this: I have been around online Mormonism for ten years. The whole talk was condescending and demeaning to people who have real, valid questions about the Church and who are trying to stay. The closing remarks were manipulative using fear and shame to get people to stay. People should stay in the church because they feel the love of God here — not because their leaders scare them into submission with the threat of losing EVERYTHING.
I am post-faith crisis active member of the church that sometimes believes and sometimes hopes to believe. I have watched friends end up leaving the church over the main issues of 1 – historical and social questions and 2 – belonging; often these are combined because those who have questions feel like they don’t belong!
Somehow Brad Wilcox was able to dismiss and diminish nearly every serious valid issue questioners wrestle with, create an atmosphere that those with questions are whiny little shallow kids, and simultaneously be as offensive as possible to Black people, all members of other religions, women, etc. Sooooo was he trying to push people out the door? Because if I could describe the fireside in one word I would say “sneering”? The PR machine already has the wheels turning on the apology on the “poor words” he chose – and not the fact that he was a condescending jerk who demeaned… everyone… but people like him?
This is the best that the Church Educational System has to offer us. As far as I know he’s the most successful CES member of the EFY speaking circuit, is he not? He is so lauded within its walls he’s been promoted to YM General Counselor. He specifically was giving this fireside to *help youth STAY in the Church.* The youth of the church are today’s investigators. And all of the youth and young adults (and adults) on the edges? Having questions? Wanting to be taken seriously? And wanting to stay? This is the best that CES has to offer.
In the words of Nate Oman, “Wilcox is a great example of what’s wrong with the BYU religion department. A “professor” of scripture with a degree in instructional design. A lifetime of unearned cultural authority on theological and historical matters. It’s a bad system.”
And it’s a damn shame.
Wheat & Tares 
Good work. It is a continuing tragedy that the CES and their co religionists refuse ,not fail but refuse to deal with the real issues that we face today. The approach of gaslighting, and playing whose got the marble , instead of directly dealing with legitimate questions has served them very poorly in the past and will serve them worst in the future. If we are serious about being disciples of Christ we need to speak the truth about all things even if it is not edifying.
This wasn’t just a BYU Religion prof who made some misguided, damaging remarks — this was a BYU Religion prof who had been called as a senior LDS official, and these were remarks made in a fireside directed to LDS youth. This just seems like institutional failure times three. This should lead the Church and BYU to conduct a serious review of (1) who they hire into BYU Religion and CES and, equally important, (2) who is doing the hiring and what guidelines they use. Because that system is plainly broken.
Monday afternoon, I was doing my work related Twitter check and saw this. It was a gut punch.
My thoughts went to my 18 daughter who is black – first instinct was to somehow shelter her from this. That would have been impossible so I thought it best if we watched it together.
I studied her face. I have never seen tears almost shoot out like that before. Then a wail of pain that I may never forget.
Then came the intense anger and some very salty language.
And that was happening ten thousand times all over the world.
She was the first to kick his a$$ on his Instagram accounts. Most commenters joined in on the pain and anger and despair.
Others defended him. Some made it political. Others cried reverse racism. “Don’t judge him by one statement.”
I watched the full fireside. It was ugly and dismissive. False equivalencies and logical fallacies masquerading as clever rebuttals. If this is what passes for fortifying the youth against doubt, be ready for the migration.
I’ve never wanted to take the gloves off before. This is a general officer of the Church. Sorry, DHO, you had to witness an official apology published in the Church News.
Brad Wilcox is a “man of his time” who echoed themes from past and current hardline LDS leaders. The difference is that we have changed. We have become more tolerant of diversity and less accepting of bigotry, sexism, etc. We are holding our leaders accountable in ways that we never have before. Wilcox’s talk and the resulting outcry may well be an historical turning point.
I currently work at a private company owned by a very well-known, secular individual. The yearly “diversity” training at this company is far more Christlike than the “musket” fire rhetoric coming from the Brethren.
@Bellamy, I’m so sorry for your daughter. That we can’t trust our kids with leaders who are supposed to be their stewards is really awful, and that’s tenfold for your kid. How hard is “do no harm”? Such a low bar!
The whole thing was a trainwreck. The FB comments on his apology are really interesting – I’m sure they are being filtered in a weird way so that I’m seeing what I’m seeing, but I’m seeing a lot of what appear to be pretty active LDS folks who are like “thanks for the apology on race, but could you also address the sexism, threats, and offense to other religious faiths” as well as “thanks for the apology on race but you are wrong about what was wrong about your comments.” I’ve talked to some fairly mainstream LDS friends who thought the talk was terrible and Wilcox fans who are very, very surprised by this (not unlike the surprise people felt when Holland jumped the shark with muskets).
-He tried to be funny – and he wasn’t. At all. He was yelling and angry and condescending and sarcastic and snarky and it was honestly *super* weird. Church leaders fundamentally do not know how to talk to people in faith crisis. Like, the only people he is going to appeal to are people who already agree with him. I don’t know why they don’t get it. Or, they aren’t even trying – maybe they are just trying to prevent people who are NOT in faith crisis not to get infected by faith crisis, but they pretend they are trying to minister to everyone.
Not only was he dismissive of women in the section you posted, but he was elsewhere when he talked about kids “playing church” and worrying about his daughters “passing the sacrament.” Calling women “girls.” Talking about a talented man getting to dance with “tons of girls” at FSY. Reeked of condescension and sexism throughout. Nice to know how the men in charge really feel about women when they aren’t so filtered.
He made those threats that “you’ll lose everything” *throughout* the talk. Multiple times. Like, I kept thinking I was accidentally listening to the same section because he repeated it so much.
He belittled other religions throughout the talk, including belittling a non-LDS friend who wrote her vows to say something like “eternal marriage” after he told her about the concept and she found it beautiful (cause you know, her eternal marriage is a sham). Like, that’s not just mean about other people’s beliefs – he was straight up mean, dismissive, and gossipy about people he claimed were friends.
As for the race and pedestalization justifications, it’s like CES just can’t let go of the folk doctrine they taught for decades, even when the Church itself disavows them.
Sorry meant @BeenThere’s daughter!! Sorry for her and you.
Oy Vey. There is sooo much wrong with this talk. I’m a convert. My family was Southern Baptist . They had as much right to have church than we do. Regarding Blacks and the priesthood, how in the world does he not know about Elijah abel and other black men who recieved the priesthood while Joseph Smith was alive?
Part of the problem was the LDS leadership do not answer questions that anyone has about any controversial topic. The LDS church leaders always change the original question and state “you are asking the wrong question”. Bednar is famous for doing this. The LDS church leadership has another fire on its plate and it is well deserved and self inflicted again. The LDS church does not need anti-Mormon to create problem. The LDS church creates their own problems.. … which leads to Anti-mormons…. and the cycle continues.
Let every one ask questions, and then answer them ! Stop telling people to rephrase their question in any form. Stop telling people how to think ! Teach the gospel is love, kindness and forgiveness. Scrap this obedience, covenant path, and Priesthood power. This is not what Christ taught or how he acted.
Why is it that LDS leaders get so angry ? why to they yell and threaten the youth and missionaries ? If this is a church of Jesus Christ why do they demonstrate such un-Christ like behavior. Why are people told and threatened….you better not leave the church or you will loose ALL your blessings and have a miserable life? (actually studies are showing life is better without the church )
it reminds me of Joseph Smith threatening the young girls that if they did not marry him an angel would smite him with the flaming sword. If the LDS church was what we were told…..then there would be no need for rescue meetings, no threats, no yelling a people, no hiding information.
This is one of those rare times when, from my perspective, no comment is needed. Just play the video with some popcorn and enjoy.
Poor Brad. I watched and listened. Maybe now we can say that Ephraim has had a sip too much wine. The Freudian slip is a consequence of deep seated nepotism that thrives in the institution and hiccups out as racism from time to time. Nepotism is racism and it pollutes the sanctuary. This time the hiccup was more a belch. Brad spoke truth to reveal where we are at: his comments emphasize his loyalty to the institution and not his stronger virtue–his love for people. LDS weak apologetics is to blame (CES), not Brad. Dozens of others in LDS leadership likely share the same infantile understanding and privately subscribe to the conversation exactly as presented. Poor Brad, he does not have a racist speck in his soul, but in an unconscious act–as innocent as a hiccup, he expressed the mind of the institution. The blessing is that from this we know the conversation is not yet finished.
Kristine A.–
Great post. I too watched this last night on the Mormon Stories YouTube channel.
As for the racist comment made by Mr. Wilcox, I understood what he was trying to say (very poorly as he admits) and it doesn’t work even if he more artfully conveyed his argument. I think he intended to say that many groups have been excluded from some gospel participation at various points in Judaeo-Christian religious history for reasons known only to God. So he is shifting the burden on God, who our leaders say speaks only to them on official doctrinal issues, and they get to tell us what God says. Blaming God is not a good approach. He is throwing God under the bus to spare the institution. It’s sickening.
The other things that struck me as odd, and I don’t think he even thought of this when he prepared or flippantly commented, is that by claiming it was God’s call on when to allow priesthood and temple ordinances to those of African heritage, he is directly in conflict with the Gospel Topic Essay on the same subject, which characterizes the issue as a “policy” blamed mostly at Brigham Young’s cultural racism, but not claiming such as God’s doctrine. So which is it? Was it a policy, was it a doctrine that changed? He is a general auxiliary leader and a BYU professor. The Gospel Topics have no signed authors. This church is so dysfunctional in its ability to declare, rescind, or expound doctrine. Just say it like it is–we declare doctrine when we feel like it for purposes we think important and reserve the right to change it whenever. Eternal and unchanging my rear end.
Also, is it just me or does this guy have the most annoying, juvenile way of talking to his audience? I understand that he was speaking to youth, and his life has been devoted to youth so he tries to be funny and quirky (dorky) to get them engaged a bit more. But any kid who was buying into his logic and explanations, is now going to think that type of presentation or argumentative style is acceptable or effective. It’s neither.
The Church is so embarrassing right now, I can hardly stand to talk about it.
I laughed out loud when he mockingly asked, “Was Brigham Young just a jerk?” Because a few weeks ago, when I taught my (10-11) primary class the lesson about the ending of the priesthood ban — which necessitated explaining the priesthood ban — one of the kids exclaimed, “Brigham Young was a JERK.” I feel like talking about the issue openly does a better job of keeping the youth in the church than Wilcox’s recent approach.
I was really moved by his last conference talk, and his talks when I was younger were a bright spot then. I am disappointed, and I’d like to see him redeem himself.
I’m home sick from work today and learned about the mess this morning because I follow Sistas in Zion on Facebook. I listened to their live session where they talked about his comments and his subsequent apology as well as their epic takedowns of people trying to tone police them in the comments. Every online space I’m a part of is blowing up with varying levels of disappointment, dismay, hurt and anger. Some thoughts:
1) He’s the second counselor in the YM Presidency. The first counselor is African-American. The mind boggles.
2) From a lot of the comments I’m seeing online, his apology of “It was a misstatement, I don’t use a teleprompter” is bunk. There are reports of these same things being said in other firesides in California, Texas and the South.
3) There’s going to be a FSY conference in Vancouver this summer and registration just opened up for it. 35 years ago I attended EFY and loved it (and now that I think about it, he might have been a speaker then, I should go check my memories box) but now I’m second-guessing whether I want to send my youngest two if this is what passes for faith-promoting.
I’m getting so tired of this doubling-down in the face of questions. It just comes across as desperate.
And this is for @BeenThere.
I’m so sorry. I ache for you and your daughter. Your comments here at W&T are full of humanity and wisdom and I’ve enjoyed them for years. Please accept this internet strangers support of you and your family.
Someone shared this comment on BCC that I thought was very appropriate to keep in mind, not only about this fireside, but about Holland’s talk last year as well: “Here’s the problem I have with this “apology”. Keeping in mind that he wrote this talk and seriously thought it was okay. He didn’t review it until he got criticism. He said exactly what he meant to say. Apologizing for his poor choice of words instead of actual racist policies is avoiding the problem. That’s not even getting started on the other issues with this talk.”
It’s been rough lately. With Natasha Helfer’s excommunication, Elder Holland’s musket talk, Elder Gong’s opposition to people getting the wrong idea about his son’s personal life, and now this fireside, I’m just completely devastated. And considering that this vitriol is not actually directed to me personally, I cannot even imagine the actual harm to the marginalized.
@BeenThere I am so sorry you and your daughter had to process this. You are in my thoughts.
I’m sorry to say it, but in think Wilcox’s comments represent the view of the mainstream of the church.
This kind of thing continues to happen because the power structures within any institution tend to protect themselves. The church of no exception. Because the church started with a power structure that subjugated women and people of color, the default position is of the church is racist and misogynistic. We can try to hide it a bit under the bed for a bit, but then this kind of thing will continue to pop up.
This cannot be stopped by neutrality. You can’t change the default position through silence. When you are silent, the default position feeds off the silence and grows like mold. If the church has any desire to avoid the hurt and anger from a history of racism and sexism, to prevent future debacles like this fireside, they need to actively promote antiracism and feminism. The question that remains: will they do it?
Wilcox is and always has been a clown. I hope he goes down hard over this.
“From a lot of the comments I’m seeing online, his apology of ‘It was a misstatement, I don’t use a teleprompter’ is bunk. There are reports of these same things being said in other firesides in California, Texas and the South.”
Margot, the impression I got from his apology is that he thinks he clumsily phrased a correct principle, not that the entire line of reasoning was racist and dismissive. That’s what I see as really the problem. He still thinks the priesthood and temple ban was a question of “God’s timing” rather than a racist policy created by racist men.
This was staggeringly poor rhetoric, and it’s shocking to hear even an LDS leader in this day and age be so openly racist, misogynistic and bullying, but hardly surprising. I don’t know if anyone has specifically mentioned this yet, but another thing such language and such a performance indicates is that Wilcox is around a lot of other people who feel the same way. It is simply impossible to believe that he’s never said these things out loud before and if he’s said them out loud and no one called him out, they’re either afraid of him or they think the same way he does. I’m guessing it’s more the latter. So I don’t believe Wilcox is even close to being the only person in a significant leadership position in the church who thinks this way. THAT’s really the problem; one bigot can be removed, reassigned, whatever, but when leadership is made up of bigots and when such bigotry, misogyny and bullying (the line about losing everything said to church youth is unconscionable) are part of the architecture of church belief and practice, well, how surprising can such a talk be? As Rockwell notes, you can’t change stuff like this with neutrality. There will be push back, from members (indeed, there already has been), but until leadership and more powerful stakeholders openly condemn such things, loudly and repeatedly, this kind of stuff will still be said and believed. And I doubt anything substantial will be done because, as Rockwell also notes, these are still the beliefs of most mainstream members.
@rockwell @brother sky, I wonder about mainstream.
I have a lot of friends who are active, committed, all in but are also really uncomfortable with racism and sexism and one-and-only type stuff. And I think they mostly just ignore it and try to be good people. I’m talking mostly younger people – not Wilcox vintage.
I don’t at all think they think like Wilcox. Was Wilcox expressing the logical extreme of their beliefs? Yes, I think he was, but I don’t think they really are conscious of that. And it may be good for them to be confronted with that.
I can’t do a survey or poll or anything, but as I mentioned above, I think this was actually off-putting and disturbing to a LOT of people who generally are good with church.
Maybe that’s just wishful thinking. I certainly agree that what he said was consistent with what a LOT of Mormons think, so I’m not crazy.
Well, my own post on this topic is teed up and will be out tomorrow morning, so rather than say what I have to say there (and I do talk about some additional angles not covered here), I will just say that I agree with Dave B that when not having qualifications is seen as the highest qualification for a religion professor, you’re going to get this kind of garbage. Also, I tend to think it’s true that Wilcox is around a bunch of others who say and feel the same things (h/t Brother Sky). They are white Mormon men. Knowing that the first counselor in the YM presidency is African American is surprising and hopefully this is someone who can do what marginalized people always have to do: educate the arrogant clueless victimhood-claiming white man.
Race was only one problem with this talk, and he clearly missed the memo on the rest of what’s wrong with it. I too heard that he’s given this same talk around the circuit, so give me a break on the claim that he misspoke.
I recently retired from a 28-year career in which I worked alongside a diverse group of colleagues who were always respectful of my Church membership and activity. I cannot imagine how I could have faced them after word of this got out. How do we hold our heads up?
@BeenThere
I’m so sorry that your daughter was exposed to that 😕
@Margot
I also tuned in to Sistas live video this afternoon and the hurt and outrage was palpable and not just on the black issue. The condescension to other religious groups was so awful – ‘playing church’!
I found the whole tone of this talk condescending and coming from a place of negativity and defensiveness with lots of ‘sad heaven’. It made me squirm just to listen.
“Knowing that the first counselor in the YM presidency is African American is surprising and hopefully this is someone who can do what marginalized people always have to do: educate the arrogant clueless victimhood-claiming white man.”
And yet… Clarence Thomas.
In just 8 weeks we are going to be sitting in General Conference and asked to sustain our leaders. Sustain him.
President Nelson has called us to repentance and love toward all people, to turn from our racist past. He forged a new relationship w the NAACP. Now it’s time to walk the walk. Let Wilcox go. No sensitivity training, no limping along while he’s taken off circuit and pushes a pencil around an office. Release. Him.
JLM: Good point about Clarence Thomas, who is literally married to a person who used the Holocaust as a far-fetched prop in her specious gun rights argument.
Two years ago, Brad Wilcox gave the same talk. His apology is fake. He has been peddling this nonsense for years. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/so12c1/brad_wilcox_1_year_ago_same_talk/
The problem with this talk is not the poor articulation of noble notions; it was an under-polished expression of toxic ideologies. Expressed to children.
He insinuates that since the priesthood was withheld from white people until 1829, it shouldn’t matter than until 1970s, black people were unable to hold the priesthood and told that they were eternally lesser, evil, and cursed. (Teachings that have slowly faded to obscurity but still enshrined within the orthodox beliefs and believers.)
He tells these children that if they leave the institutional church, they will lose everything of value and worth in their lives.
He de-legitimizes the sincerely held beliefs of every other religion or spiritual practitioner, comparing any “other” to children playing house.
Unacceptable.
I ignored the first Clarence Thomas reference but I’m not going to ignore two.
Clarence is a conservative Supreme Court justice who also happens to be black. To be a black conservative in this country is the ultimate example of diversity. I thought most of you folks liked diversity. Or is it that you only like your idea of diversity (Mormon Democrats, etc.)?
Lots of good comments. Just wanted to add that yes, he has been giving this same talk for years. Here’s one from almost exactly two years ago in Georgia. Listen around the 30 minute mark to hear the exact same verbiage. And now he’s sorry?
@Josh h I don’t think anyone is saying anything about diversity or conservatism? I think the point is that just because someone is black doesn’t mean they are going to champion causes that help black people, so the fact that there’s a black man in the YM Pres with a Wilcox doesn’t mean that the presidency is necessarily going to be anti-racist like one might hope. Just like Thomas has not particularly used his position of power to do so.
Separate note, there are ten million billion good comments floating around the internet but one favorite is Lindsay Hansen Park’s take re trauma (fascinating), and Brad’s wife’s defense of him (calling a FB commenter someone who would probably “be the first to hammer a nail in Jesus’s cross” ?!?!?!?! You can’t make this up!!! I wonder if she got the line from Hank Smith?)
As to the question of whether Wilcox’s ideas are mainstream, I think they are mainstream in his circles. And that’s concerning, because his circles are the leaders of CES and the Young Men’s program. I hope it isn’t mainstream among the general membership, but it was taught to a lot of the older members, and a lot of the youth are leaving, so I don’t know. What I know is that it’s prevalent enough that it is pushing me out the door when I really want to stay. And it feels like it is getting worse maybe. Or maybe it’s the last desperate gasp of an older, more conservative generation to retrench before they lose power, but if Holland’s address to BYU and Brad Wilcox and D*zN*t are the future of the church, there’s no place in it for me or my kids.
@doubting tom, the exponent blog has a post that highlights a passage from a John Bytheway book (in print) that makes this same argument too.
This isn’t misspeaking. This is the CES story.
josh h, “To be a black conservative in this country is the ultimate example of diversity”
No. A black person has biological features that they cannot change. No matter how much conservatives want to be seen as victims and as a sort of oppressed minority and try to compare themselves to Jews in the Holocaust for believing the ignorant things they believe, they are not an ethnic group. They are not a racial group. I can’t tell a conservative simply by looking at them. Someone can stop being conservative by ceasing to profess belief in conservative ideas.
“I thought most of you folks liked diversity”
This is just insulting. The predominant ethos among liberals, Democrats, and progressives generally seems to be that they recognize that ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual orientation diversity is a fact of life and that we should strive to recognize such diversity and accommodate it towards a goal of equality (an ideal strongly espoused by the Founding Fathers that conservatives has completely forgotten). Diversity of ideas is a fact of life too, but we can and should try to steer people from really bad ideas.
Elisa understood my CT comment correctly.
I apologize for being MIA on the comments, three preschoolers walk in when I hit publish and I was offline until I literally had to wrestle them to bed tonight.
moving on from the tangent of Clarence Thomas etc …. I agree with the comments that more clearly stated he’s not quite catching what the actual issue is beyond . . . . the casual racism. I have since watched the video from Georgia a few years ago and am surprised that I found his phrasing and tone softer than Alpine’s video. Still bad, but not sneering? if an edited 38-second clip of GA got out I don’t think it’d hit the same. I think that’s further evidence of his apology being solely for his slightly worse phrasing in Utah. Idk man, short of true racial reconciliation with apology and honesty about the priesthood and temple ban, what are the options here? would they Randy Bott retire him? or the more common method of removing problems, calling as a mission president again? If he’s keeping his platform I for sure as heck hope there are people playing intervention.
Great comments! Can someone tell me if this is an ongoing “Youth Rescue” plan? Is this being held in various stakes churchwide to motivate youth to stay active? Because I just can’t see most teens being inspired by listening to this garbage.
Great comments! Can someone tell me if this is an ongoing “Youth Rescue” plan? Is this being held in various stakes churchwide to motivate youth to stay active? Because I just can’t see most teens being inspired by listening to this garbage.
From what I can tell he’s been giving this same fireside nearly word for word for years. It does seem catered to inoculate youth from questions and leaving — though I”m not sure if there is an ongoing actual youth rescue plan.
Has anyone brought up the rumors that he was the subject of at least one alleged Title IX investigation while at BYU for inappropriate behavior with a student?
This is all so exhausting. And coming on top of the recent car crashes of events in Britain and Europe, excommunication of British podcaster Peter Bleakley (Mormon civil war) and Holland’s musket talk atrocity.. I’m feeling all hope being sucked away
The events in Britain & Europe had plenty of coverage on the various British podcast/ YouTube channels for anyone interested…
21st century saints
Priesthood dispatches
Nemo the Mormon
…
It might be worth a moment to parse out a bit more why I said Wilcox’s statements represent the mainstream view of the church. I wasn’t being careful or precise when I said that. So here are some things that might put a bit of a finer point in it:
I don’t really have any idea if a majority of members would agree with Wilcox. There may very well be substantial majority who are uncomfortable with this talk.
I haven’t seen anyone defending the talk (yet), but that might be due to Wilcox’s Facebook apology.
That said, I envision Wilcox and other church leaders puzzling over this whole thing right now trying to figure out exactly what about it is offensive. They don’t really seem to have a clue. Amongst the leadership this kind of talk probably seemed okay.
I’m reminded of the Catholic position on birth control: the leadership is against it, but most Catholics (quietly) use it. Even though most Catholics use birth control at some point, I think it would be correct to say that opposition to birth control is in the mainstream view of the Catholic Church. In a similar way, Wilcox’s talk represents (the /a) mainstream view of the LDS church leadership. I don’t know if a majority of members support it, but not many have vocally opposed it.
The presentation and theatrics were also very over the top and off putting but perhaps this is what these EFY type presentations have been like – attempts to win over the kids with performance? I think it’s very outdated and underestimates the intelligence of our youth. I’d love to have a window on what many of this audience felt about it.
I’m so sick of complaining about these disasters on the bloggernacle and not doing anything. My soul is aching and I’m going to write a few letters. I’m aware that most things addressed to 50 N Temple get filed in the “round file” (aka the trash bin), but, that’s not the only recourse.
BYU posted a tweet that said it is following procedure in following the guidelines of BYU President Worthen and the Committee on Race, Equity, and Belonging and a new Office of Belonging.
Does anyone know who chairs these committees and offices at BYU?
Thank you @Elisa, @Margot, @Chadwhick, and @Di for your kind words and comforting expressions. The unfortunate bit is that this thing that shocked and unsettled most of us is just another day in the life of being black in Utah. As the SistasInZion said yesterday: “The audacity of caucasity!”
Though we may be internet strangers, I truly value the W&T community, it’s thoughtfulness, intelligent discourse, and even comradery. The OPs are awesome. I love that there is such a range of viewpoints and coordinates on our Mormon path.
Cheers!
@Mortimer
https://race.byu.edu/committee-members
Hi Again,
According to BYU’s swift public statement on Wilcox’s talk, the BYU Committee on Race, Equity and Belonging will be reviewing the situation and recommending actions according to their guidelines/policies.
Conveniently, they have an online form for public comments to be submitted related to their work.
https://race.byu.edu
Also, you can find the names of all committee members on that webpage, in case you are also writing letters.
Thanks @Beenthere..:I didn’t see you comment and stumbled on the info. Apologies for stepping on your toes, but THANK YOU for the information.
@Di The presentation and theatrics were also very over the top and off putting but perhaps this is what these EFY type presentations have been like – attempts to win over the kids with performance? I think it’s very outdated and underestimates the intelligence of our youth. I’d love to have a window on what many of this audience felt about it.
I absolutely agree that this approach worked 20 years ago, but it’s just setting kids up for a lot more problems when they actually run into the real issues
@Rockwell: That said, I envision Wilcox and other church leaders puzzling over this whole thing right now trying to figure out exactly what about it is offensive. They don’t really seem to have a clue. Amongst the leadership this kind of talk probably seemed okay.
I said on twitter yesterday “One of the reasons mormonism feels so chaotic today is because there are some Q12 members who would watch the video and be mortified and some who would watch it and go … “And??” Personally I think the majority of members are in the midde: uncomfortable with the tone even if not the content – but they may think the outrage is over the top, as well as the deznat defender types. I see top leadership, regardless of where they are on the spectrum, trying to avoid a schism by holding the middle.
unrelated from the fireside but also kind of not: his former students arereporting homophobic statements he’d been making in his classroom lately “Sharing a sexual preference is TMI [coming out] imagine telling people we liked to do it with the lights on or off.” and also ““does a righteous member of the church ever have to worry about aids?? Do we even have to think about it?? No, we don’t, not ever. That’s what happens when you’re obedient.”
@Di, I don’t have a window into “many” – I only know one person whose daughter listened (via zoom, not in person, but live). He said she came downstairs before it was done, seemed upset, he asked her how it was and she just said “It was really bad.” She is a perfectly active young woman, he’s in the bishopric, etc.
Thanks @Elisa – these kids are just too smart for this type of nonsense. When they’re exposed to this sort of thing I’m sure it only leads to more questions – not reassurance that they’re on the right path.
Kristine A: Wowzers, that AIDS comment is bad. Par for the course during Reagan’s America maybe, but even then, where is our compassion? A sister from my mission died from AIDS a year after she went home, and she was so-called “obedient” and righteous. She was the primary medical caregiver for her uncle who was dying of AIDS. No doctor would have ever said that AIDS wasn’t a big deal so long as you weren’t a homosexual, which is the judgment Wilcox is making here. People died for many reasons, and also what kind of Christian thinks all homosexuals deserve to die (which is literally what he’s saying)???
There was a thread on Twitter of his former students sharing how uncomfortable they were with his constant touching and kissing of female students. He would stand at the door after class, administering hugs, whether they wanted them or not. Without any actual complaints (e.g. Title IX or actual sexual misconduct) this falls into the same camp as Biden sniffing hair, creepy and weird, but not probably a fire-able offense. In a patriarchy, though, this kind of behavior will be seen as an asset because so many men are taught *not* to be openly affectionate. They will feel relief that he can do that for the rest of them, and they’ll put him in charge of outreach–WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID. Why oh why is this stuff so predictable to the rest of us and yet a complete and total blind spot to them?
Thanks @Elisa – pretty much what I would have guessed. These kids are too smart for this type of nonsense and the results are more than likely counterproductive to the intent.
I struggle to understand why it is so hard for current leadership to say that previous leadership was wrong on an issue. Don’t we believe in further light and knowledge? Don’t we beleive in continuing revelation? Don’t we beleive that a living prophet is more valuable than a dead one? Don’t we beleive that the atonement will cleanse each generation of their particular blood and sins?
RMN needs to come out in GC and unequivocally state, “BY was wrong for instituting the PH and temple ban. We beleive he was doing his best with his limited understanding and flawed worldview. So were all past church presidents that perpetuated the ban. We know better now. Future leaders of the church will also have more light and knowledge than we currently have. All we can do is do the best with what we know now.”
See, not hard.
JLM,
Elder Andersen refused to say that Pres. Monson was wrong with the I’m a Mormon campaign, despite Pres. Nelson’s “victory for Satan” rhetoric. Church leaders will not admit other leaders are wrong. They will argue that the leaders did the right thing for their time.
I just learned that BW’s giving a fireside on Sunday in Edmonton, Alberta. I have family there, including teenage nieces and nephews. I called my sister this morning to give her the heads-up about this mess and warn her she’s going to want to sit in and listen to see if anything’s changed. She wasn’t aware of the video going viral but was appalled at the summary of what he said. Her words, “I’m so sick of this crap.”
Sunday will be very telling. I swear, if he complains at all about cancel culture or jokes about the fallout from Alpine…. @Di, if you have family in Edmonton, you might want to give them a heads-up.
Amen to Kristine on her writeup. Ditto to most all the comments. It just amazes me how much the church leadership just doesn’t get it when how to deal with this. I just wish they would take David Ostler’s “Bridges” book and have all leaders read it before the next conference leadership meeting they talk about the wisdom in that book.
Cancel Hank and Brad !!
Cancel Hank and Brad !!
It would be so nice if just being able to get Hank, Brad, Bytheway off the circuit that the problem would go away. My friend Rachel Whipple commented on my fb yesterday:
“I think the real problem is not the tone (which is very condescending and glib) or the person (I know nothing about Mr. Wilcox), but the fact that everything he said is regularly taught in the church, at all levels. I’m more concerned about the substance than the tone, the meaning than the analogies used. There is no apology for that because our church is not ready to do a real reckoning.”
which, honestly, is our real problem
As more videos surface, it’s clear Wilcox has been making these exact comments for years and has never gotten public pushback on it. Kristine’s friend is right. The Church was quick to officially disavow Randy Bott’s comments in 2012. Church leaders don’t have a problem with Wilcox’s comments.
I remember the exact point about AIDs being made by Randy Bott in the early 2000s at BYU. Maybe it came from a CES conference they both attended?
Thanks for the posts and the comments. I was just going to leave a sad face as my comment. ☹
I’ll add my two cents to the question of whether Bro. Wilcox’s comments represent the view of the mainstream of the church.
I’m not sure if I’m “mainstream” but I’m an active and faithful member of the church who grew up in SLC.
1. I don’t share Brad Wilcox’s views and I condemn this talk.
2. I share my condolences, comfort, and love to all those who were hurt or harmed by this talk. Those things shouldn’t have been said, and you shouldn’t have to hear them or put up with them. I don’t know of anything I can do to make it better, but I’m here to mourn with you and sit with you in your hurt.
*by “make it better” I mean “undo the hurt and pain that was caused by this talk” – I do hope to make things better in the church in other ways.
@Margot thanks for the heads up. No family in Edmonton – mostly Calgary, Lethbridge and Utah. I’m pretty sure he will have changed his talk by now but I don’t have high expectations on a replacement talk either. One daughter said that one of her favourite talks from many years ago was one BW gave on grace. Maybe he’d do better to stick with something like that.
Playing church? Who is playing church? Not the denomination that meets in cheap and ugly cinderblock boxes and serves tap water as the Blood of Christ and rehashes the same lessons year after year after year. Nope. Not those people.
I’ve already upvoted Kristine A’s friend Rachel, but I wanted to reiterate what she said. If we focus to much on Br. Wilcox, we could miss the opportunity to really focus in on the substance of these issues.
What do we* believe about the priesthood and temple ban? That it was God orchestrating the whole thing on His timing and men were just doing what God told them (while erroneously trying to come up with bad justifications for why God would be telling them to do this? Or do we believe that men were doing this on their own volition and were unable or unwilling to seek God’s will, so God had to “go along with it” because members and apostles and prophets were not listening to Him?
What do we believe about women and priesthood? That women are superior to men (or men are inferior to women) so men get official ordination to priesthood office while women just kind of use priesthood to do good things? Or maybe, again, men are holding on to their false traditions and not really listening to God?
If the answer to these and other difficult questions is really “we just don’t know the answers?” what is it that is preventing us from knowing? Our stubbornness because we won’t like the answers? A fear of damaging trust in the institution and its leaders? A fear of losing faith in God (who is fickle enough to not want to answer our questions or who seems to change His mind on morally significant issues)?
I don’t know how we want to answer the questions that Br. Wilcox was attempting (and failing) to really answer. I also fear that, if we don’t figure out how to find the answers to these kinds of questions, people will continue to lose faith in the prophets and/or the Church and/or God Himself. Perhaps it is the epitome of hubris for me to try to command God in what He ought to do, but somehow I think we need the True (capital T) answers to these kinds of questions.
I forgot to add — the asterisk on the we? I’m not sure who I’m referring to here, but I think it could be a pronoun that stands in for the Church as an institution, the Church’s leaders, the Church’s members, the W&T community, maybe it just refers to me and God, I’m not sure. I expect that different groups probably want to give different answers to the questions, and I don’t want to assume that I will agree with the answers given by any one group, but somehow I also want to include myself in the search for those answers (so it isn’t a dismissive, “this is what THEY believe.”)
@MrShorty, I commented over at BCC that I agree this should really be about criticizing the Church teachings and institution and system that enabled Wilcox (who was just speaking the party line) and not really attacking him personally.
I think your question about what “we” believe is SUPER interesting. I don’t think Wilcox represents what *I* believe, or even what a lot of LDS academics (like Patrick Mason) believe. I do suspect, though, that his beliefs are consistent with “leadership’s” position on the issue (again, what does that mean?). And what does it mean for my participation if I believe one way but Church leadership believes another way? Anyway that is a tricky question that I don’t have an answer to but I think is a full discussion …
Patrick Mason talks some about this and our lack of systemic theology on Twitter:
aporetic1: While I appreciate your sentiment that we should want to make things better for those hurt by these remarks, I am personally no longer capable of being hurt by these types of remarks. They are par for the course in this Church. The Church is, however, capable of being hurt by continually promoting and giving a platform to these types of ideas. This is a crisis of leadership, not of membership.
Angela C,
You are correct. We are in a state of cultural flux and ambiguity right now. If church leaders don’t take a stand, members will turn to past voices or unreliable present voices to mold our future. If leaders want a say, they have to speak and act now. And unfortunately, silence can also speak volumes.
@Angela C, I think I agree with you. I also didn’t feel harmed by his remarks. When listening to the talk my thought was “Wait, that’s not true.” – And just because he said it, and he’s in a leadership position in the church… He.. can’t actually change the truth.
But is your point that if church leaders are publicly saying things that aren’t true, then it hurts the church? I agree with that, but I am more concerned by any people that were hurt, than by the hurt it will cause the church.
That’s kind of what I wanted to comment originally… but it seemed insensitive, like, “Why are you upset by this? He can’t actually change what’s true with his words, we know that right? So this is only hurting the church.” And I didn’t want to come across like that because I think people were hurt by it.
“He was using the “what about the whites” question to show it was in a list of questions that don’t matter — meaning he was precisely saying that the question “why didn’t the blacks receive the priesthood until 1978” didn’t matter because the only thing that matters is the Lord’s timing.”
Personally, I think this might be too generous a reading of Brad’s remarks. I don’t think he was trying to use the “what about the whites” question as an example of an equally unimportant question as a rhetorical device regarding a discussion of the Lord’s timing. He specifically said, “Perhaps we are asking the WRONG question” and “perhaps what we SHOULD be asking is…” That implies that the question about Black ordination is misguided and a preferable question is “why did the whites and everyone else have to wait so long?” What it reveals to me is not just a misunderstanding of the issue, the history, or the impact that the racist policies have had on Black Latter-day Saints, but that Brad is arguing that we shouldn’t attend to those things and get back to centering the experiences of white people in the church. In essence, Brad is saying, “Stop thinking about how we have hurt BIPOC people in the church, and think instead about how white people have had it bad too,” He does the same thing with women’s ordination. “Stop thinking about how women are limited with regard to their influence and authority in the church, and think instead about how men can’t go into the temple without ordination.” Interestingly, he appears to be ignorant of how the intersection of these two apologetic arguments raises questions about why Black people were forbidden ordination AND access to the temple, let alone all the other corollary practices that affected Black members—like pronouncing their lineage from Cain or Ham in their patriarchal blessings, etc.
Anyway, I think Brad’s fireside—which he has evidently given multiple times of the years and is incredible well-rehearsed at this point—combined with evidence that others have been teaching similar things in their books and firesides for years (looking at you, John Bytheway), demonstrates that racist theological ideas related to the rights and privileges of Black people in the church continue to be the status quo in the Church Educational System and leadership hierarchy. Brad Wilcox and Randy Bott are not anomalies in the system—they are manifestations of the system. Their sin is not for believing or even promoting the quiet parts, but for saying them out loud. That is why neither they nor the church is apologizing for the quiet parts, only for accidentally saying them where others can hear.
Personally, I think this might be too generous a reading of Brad’s remarks. I don’t think he was trying to use the “what about the whites” question as an example of an equally unimportant question as a rhetorical device regarding a discussion of the Lord’s timing. He specifically said, “Perhaps we are asking the WRONG question” and “perhaps what we SHOULD be asking is…” That implies that the question about Black ordination is misguided and a preferable question is “why did the whites and everyone else have to wait so long?”
Scoobah, I think that’s valid but I based it on adding the rest of his paragraph:
~And why did the gentiles have to wait until after the Jews? And why did everybody in the house of Israel, except the tribe of Levi, have to wait until …. when you look like it like that — instead of trying to feel like you have to figure out God’s timeline, you can just be grateful down to our socks that the blacks received the priesthood in 1978.~
I believe that was just one step in his poorly thought out argument: why not the blacks? because (a) the whites had to wait which leads to (b) gentiles waiting which leads to (c) levites only restriction ….. which OBVIOUSLY there is no answer to ANY of these but the Timing Of The Lord.
Obviously we disagree but I think he was grouping all 4 questions into a list of “we don’t ask these questions bc were just so gosh darn grateful to our socks”