“Sometimes, …poorly-reasoned arguments end up doing more harm than good…. While it would be a difficult phenomenon to measure, I suspect that within the population of people who have become disaffected from the Church regarding gender issues, there is a fairly large group who have left not because of Church policy per se, but rather because they found the apologetics offered for the policy to be unbearable.”
Julie M. Smith, “Avoiding Collateral Damage: Creating a Woman-Friendly Mormon Apologetics,” in Blair G. Van Dyke and Loyd Isao Ericson, eds., Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2017), 167.
In February 2012, a BYU professor made waves by explaining common reasons given for the Church’s long-time temple and priesthood ban. The reaction from church officials was swift. In an official statement released the following day, church leaders declared, “The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
This week, another BYU professor made waves in the news with remarks regarding previous racial restrictions. Brad Wilcox apologized for misspeaking at a Sunday evening fireside, but videos subsequently emerged showing that his phrasing was not a singular flub. Unlike 2012, the Church chose not to respond.
My co-bloggers Kristine A and Hawkgrrrl already wrote fabulous posts on Sunday’s fireside fiasco. I want to specifically address the problematic aspects of Brad Wilcox’s apologetics, meaning the way he justified and defended the Church’s positions. Of the three videos that have come to light, Wilcox used pretty much the same reasoning for the temple and priesthood racial restrictions in all of them. In the third video, titled “Brad Wilcox: 12 Tribes of Isreal Breakdown” (it’s misspelled on YouTube, sorry), he expanded his defense of the current restriction on women’s ordination. He also discussed polygamy. Although Wilcox’s views are shared by many members and leaders of the Church, the arguments are… lacking.
Polygamy
- After pointing out the biblical patriarch Jacob had multiple wives, [11:30] “‘Oh, Brother Wilcox, I’m like losing my testimony because I found out Joseph Smith was a polygamist.’ How come no one’s losing his testimony because Jacob was a polygamist!”
- After explaining that monogamy is God’s general rule per the Manifesto, [12:40] “Does God sometimes break his own laws? Yeah! Ask Nephi about that one. Yeah, sometimes for his purposes he’ll change his own rules.”
- [12:57] “Why did we have to have polygamy? I don’t know all the reasons, but I know a good one: to get me here. I’m walking on this earth because somebody lived polygamy.”
Temple and Priesthood Racial Restrictions
- [20:03] “Brother Wilcox, how come the blacks didn’t receive the priesthood until 1978? What’s with that? Was Brigham Young racist? What’s with that? Oh, you’ll hear a lot of things. Maybe we’re asking the wrong question.”
- [21:09] “Maybe we’re asking the wrong questions. Why didn’t the blacks get the priesthood until 1978—Why didn’t the whites get the priesthood until 1829? One thousand eight hundred twenty-nine years they waited for the priesthood to be restored. And why didn’t the Gentiles get the gospel until after the Jews? And why didn’t anybody but the tribe of Levi get the priesthood in the days of Jacob?[fn1] See, when we look at it like that, then instead of trying to figure out God’s timeline, maybe we can just be grateful. Grateful that the Gentiles received the gospel, grateful that the priesthood was restored in 1829, and grateful right down to our socks that the blacks received the priesthood in 1978. Grateful.”
Women and the Priesthood
- [22:03] “Yeah, but how come the women don’t have the priesthood? Sisters, listen very closely. You have access to every priesthood blessing. There’s not one priesthood blessing that you are denied, and you serve with priesthood authority. When you are set apart in a calling or as a missionary, you serve with priesthood authority.”
- [22:40] “And sisters, you are endowed in temples with priesthood power, and you dress in priesthood robes. So what is it you’re missing? Two things, keys and you’re missing ordination.”
- [23:43] “So please don’t mix up keys with influence. Surely there are women in the Church who have much more influence than a deacons quorum president. See, women have all the influence that they possibly could have. One thing I’ve learned since being called into the general presidency a year and a half ago is that the sisters, the nine sisters who serve as organizational presidents and counselors, are very involved with the running of the entire Church. I didn’t realize that. If you’d have asked me a year and a half ago, “What do the Primary Presidency do? Run the Primary?” No, they run the Church. They literally serve on all the executive councils of the Church, the missionary council, the priesthood and family council. They serve on the welfare, humanitarian aid council, on the temple council. They serve with apostles, and they meet with the Quorum of the Twelve every Wednesday. Every Wednesday, they meet with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Now, when you realize that the apostles, now, when they do priesthood trainings, they always go accompanied by one of these sisters who also trains with them, then you understand that the sisters are very engaged in having an influence in this church. I sit in some of those meetings, too, and I’m told to shut up. And the sisters are told to speak up. If they don’t speak up, Elder Ballard will say, “Sister Cordon! What do you think about this? Tell us what you’re thinking about this.” Does anybody ask Brother Wilcox what he’s thinking about this? No! Not at all. Sit there and smile, Brad, just sit there and smile. So women have great influence. You know that in your wards, you know that in your stakes, and you know that at the general level of the Church. Don’t mix keys up with influence.”
- [26:30] “Now why aren’t women ordained to the priesthood? Again, maybe we’re asking the wrong question. Maybe the question we should ask is why don’t they need to be? Sisters, how many of you have ever gone into a temple to perform ordinances?… Do you realize that you are doing something that no man in the Church can do? There’s not a man in the Church that can walk into that temple to perform ordinances if he hasn’t been ordained, and yet you waltz right in. Just waltz right in! So maybe the question we should be asking is, what do women bring with them from the premortal life that men learn through ordination? Maybe that’s the question that should keep us up at night.
Okay, so let’s start with polygamy. Wilcox first argued that the practice of polygamy in the Near East during the Bronze Age (as recorded by folks in the Near East during the Iron Age) is no different than polygamy among Victorian era Euro-Americans in the United States of America. If we’re not bothered by one, we obviously shouldn’t be bothered by the other. And if we’re bothered by both, well, tough.
Second, Wilcox pointed out that God is allowed to break his rules when it suits his purposes. I mean, at least that’s consistent with the capricious deities of the ancient Near East.
Finally, Wilcox pulled out a classic: the ends justify the means. Admittedly, he’s on firm theological footing with this one. Remember the story of Tamar in the bible? She pretended to be a prostitute in order to get pregnant by her father-in-law, and that was apparently fine (Genesis 38:26). Also, you’ve got the main polygamy Gospel Topics Essay, which states, “Through the lineage of these 19th-century [polygamist] Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials.” We needed polygamy to get all those faithful church members, and the proof is that it worked.
Let’s jump to women’s ordination. Wilcox argued first that women have access to every priesthood blessing, and they serve with priesthood authority. Isn’t that awesome? Church leaders have been saying that women serve with priesthood authority for almost ten years. In April 2014 President Oaks stated, “We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?” Sharon Eubank referenced the exciting new doctrine in a FAIR address later that year, “Elder Oaks said, ‘Women may possess Priesthood authority.’ We have never put those words in a sentence together before, I don’t think, and really felt it was right.”
Next, Wilcox stated that sisters are “endowed in temples with priesthood power, and you dress in priesthood robes.” Now this one is super cool, because people used to be excommunicated for saying it. Luckily (around 2014 coincidentally enough), church leaders changed their tune. Again, Sharon Eubank excitedly pointed out, “The apostles are trying to give us new language. In just the last year, Elder M. Russell Ballard said that ‘when endowed, both men and women are given ‘power in the Priesthood.””
Wilcox then pointed out that the female general officers serve on the Church’s executive councils and are in on all the decision-making in the Church. He emphasized, “[W]omen have all the influence that they possibly could have.” All that we possibly could have. He didn’t mention that women have been involved in those councils since all the way back in 2015! Well, it started with one woman per council. I mean, the brethren didn’t want to get too crazy. Yep, each of the three executive councils got one woman each: the Priesthood and Family Executive Council, the Temple and Family History Executive Council, and the Missionary Executive Council. Sister Bonnie Oscarson wrote at the time, “What a great time to be a woman in the Church where our voices are needed and valued more than ever.” By July 2021, women’s participation had increased to TWO female general officers per council. See? All the influence that we’d ever need.
Finally, Wilcox argued that women bring with them something from the premortal realm that men lack.[fn2] That’s why women are allowed to “waltz” into temples while men require ordination. Well, except women of black African descent. Apparently there was a glitch on that special preloaded feature between the years of 1852 and 1978, because women of black African descent weren’t allowed to waltz (or even walk) into temples to perform ordinances. Weird, right?
Which brings us to the race restrictions on temples and priesthood. First Wilcox asked the question, “Was Brigham Young racist?” To which any intelligent student of history would cry, “Heck, yeah!” I mean, even the Race and Priesthood Gospel Topic Essay explained that Brigham Young justified the priesthood ban with “widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black ‘servitude’ in the Territory of Utah.”
But Wilcox wasn’t really asking the audience to think about Brigham Young’s racial views. The point he was trying to make was that we shouldn’t waste time trying to understand God’s timeline. We should just be grateful that white and black men got the priesthood in 1829. It was a bummer that God revoked the blessings of the priesthood to black people in 1852, but at least Brigham Young carefully explained why men and women of black African descent fell under Cain’s curse and thus couldn’t receive ordinances beyond baptism and confirmation.[fn3] And even though Brigham Young’s entire explanation of why those restrictions were put in place have now been disavowed by the Church, it shouldn’t matter, right? Because it was obviously all according to God’s plan.
Thankfully, God scheduled for all the race restrictions to be lifted in 1978! Everyone gets the benefit of priesthood and temple blessings now, so we can just be grateful. It happened just as it was supposed to, because the ends justified the means.
And God had a special treat for women in 2014. No need to try to understand the timing. Women now have all the influence we’d ever need in the Church. We even have the priesthood! Well, minus the keys and ordination part, but apparently those aren’t a big deal. Women obviously have something that men lack, and it’s super important, cause all men need to be ordained to the priesthood to learn about it. And whatever that is, I can just be grateful to have it.
[fn1] “And why didn’t anybody but the tribe of Levi get the priesthood in the days of Jacob?” I’m sure Brother Wilcox meant “in the days of Moses,” unless the BYU Religion Department now has a policy of ignoring any timeline when it comes to priesthood.
[fn2] Totally heard this from my BYU Religion professors twenty years ago. One said that the priesthood is like a car radio. Women have a manufacturer-installed radio. Men have to use after-market parts. But women aren’t supposed to use the radio, or maybe not just play it for other people? I don’t know, the metaphor kind of broke down at that point.
[fn3] Did you know that you can read Brigham Young’s theological reasoning he gave on February 5, 1852, to the Utah Territorial Legislature? Yep, the transcription of George D. Watt’s original shorthand is just over at the Church History Library website. Brigham Young explained that since Cain slew Abel, the descendants of Cain were cursed to not have the priesthood and temple blessings until after all of Abel’s descendants got to receive the priesthood (which would be at the “redemption of the earth”). Those of black African descent “may receive the Spirit of Lord by baptism that is the end of their privilege and no power on earth give them any more power.”
Wheat & Tares 
yes. Apart from being racially offensive, dripping with harmful stereotypes about women, and totally historically (and currently) inaccurate, Wilcox’s arguments were actually *just plain stupid*. If that is the best we can cobble together – literally lies and racism and sexism and the argument is STILL intellectually totally not at all compelling even if you can get past that – then apologetics is doing more harm than good.
The brand of apologetics has got to go. Givens (minus the radical orthodoxy nonsense) and Mason and that variety are the path forward IMO. I don’t know how anyone thinks that the CES version works.
I listened to BW’s entire Alpine talk and I think I see two different things going on that has caused this talk to blow up. First, his content. He says things that contradict the Gospel Topic Essays and other official explanations. So who do we believe? Second, his style. He is extremely patronizing and condescending. He has one of these know-it-all personalities that illustrate everything to him is all so simple and he just can’t understand why everyone doesn’t see it his way. I really believe that if his style was not so objectionable, he probably could have gotten away with the content.
When you combine bad content with bad style you’re in trouble. I’m kind of amazed that he got away with it this long. He’s been giving this stump speech for at least two years. Why is it just now blowing up (remember that one in Atlanta was Jan 2020 and on video tape too). And it’s not just this speech. Remember his recent wisdom about identifying members vs. non-members by their physical demeanor?
I am very conflicted about him. On one hand, I want him to keep it up so that he unintentionally damages the Church. I know that sounds harsh but that’s how I feel about it. It’s the same reason I get excited every time Bednar takes the microphone. I absolutely love the “there are no homosexuals in the Church” line. But I’m conflicted because I am so concerned about the damage these men do to our young people. It breaks my heart to think that a YM and/ or YW in that Alpine audience had to process all his toxicity. What if that kid doesn’t have a safe bishop or parent to talk to?
From what I’ve read, BW has another fireside talk scheduled in the next couple of weeks. IT will be very very interesting to see if that talk goes as scheduled. And if so, I’m dying to see how the content and style are changed. Popcorn moment.
I always love that line about how as a woman, I have access to the exact same blessings a man does. I suppose if I were asking the right questions, the list below wouldn’t read like blessings, but like necessary burdens men have to bear in order to learn how to rule their universes as future Gods.
1. I can’t exercise my gift of the spirit to heal because I am barred from even giving healing blessings of faith, let alone invoking the priesthood.
2. I can’t bless my own baby or baptize my own child.
3. I can’t exercise any priesthood authority in the temple to perform ordinances for children or men.
4. I can’t become a queen and a priestess to God.
5. I can’t preside over my husband and children in this life or the next.
6. I didn’t covenant with God during my endowment. I promised to hearken to my husband while he made no promise to me. I gave myself to him and he never have himself to me.
7. I will never bless or pass the sacrament. I will never experience what it is like to represent Christ in that way.
8. I will never see someone who looks like me in the all male Godhead.
9. I will never become truly like God. I will never be in a Godhead or use priesthood power to create (for those who would say but Heavenly Mother! If She is God just as much as the Father, then we would all face condemnation for not remembering Her always, for not seeking Her in prayer, and for not worshipping Her).
10. I will never be able to consecrate a grave of a loved one.
11. I can’t consecrate my own home.
12. I can’t ask faithful women for blessings about private female medical issues. I have to speak vaguely with male priesthood holders and hope their blessing isn’t just as vague.
13. I have limited opportunities to learn leadership and speaking skills through church service because I’m barred from most leadership callings.
14. Despite my professional experience or other credentials, I can’t use them at church in roles like being a clerk, a technology specialist, a mission leader, etc.
15. I would not have a full partner in the eternities if I were to die early and my husband remarry. I would forever remain faithful to him while his loyalties and faithfulness would always be divided.
I could go on. But maybe these are the wrong things to focus on. Maybe trying to understand my divine nature and potential through a male God who supposedly created these policies to bless His daughters is futile. I should take Brother Wilcox’s advice and focus on what men can’t do. Maybe another question I should be asking is what other necessary ordinances don’t I need? Men require priesthood ordination, but I don’t because of my inherent righteousness. So why did I have to get baptized and confirmed? Why do I have to be endowed and sealed? Is it because like Christ, I too must condescend to fulfill all righteousness?
If the church is supportive of Wilcox’s rhetoric, then they have to follow its logical ends. Of course there are no logical ends with their racist and sexist policies.
This is excellent. And it really made me wonder: why is there no temple recommend question about racism? Why questions about supporting leaders, but no questions about supporting your brothers and sisters of all of God’s wonderful varieties?
I have read and re-read the above snippet from “women and the priesthood” section at 23:43 several times because I think it’s actually fascinating. I didn’t know what he shared here, and while the progress is slow, it’s progress and it’s nice to be happy about something in the church these days. And we should be sharing this knowledge with the members, while constantly demanding more representation all the time. But as Josh h pointed out, the tone is just so bad. Why did he have to throw in that part about no one asking his opinion and how he just sits there and smiles? It’s gross. It’s apparently always about Brad.
This whole “we are asking the wrong questions” gets out of hand really fast. I’ve already seen several memes mocking this. To share one for context “We shouldn’t be asking why Joseph Smith married a mother and daughter pair. We should be asking why he didn’t marry the grandma too?” We laugh so we don’t cry. But seriously, this is very poor Socratic method that just needs to stop.
The priesthood is the most bizarre thing. You can’t be too good like women, because then you don’t need it/can’t have it. But you can’t be too bad like people of color used to be, because then you aren’t worthy. It’s like I scored big being in the Goldilocks zone of gender and race. This too just has to go.
I have a feeling that kids are going to be required to put their phones in a basket in order to gain entrance to future firesides.
For one, Brad Wilcox forgot about Elijah Abel, a black man ordained to the priesthood around 1839.
On Brigham Young being jerk, Wilcox is forgetting the consensus among historians (believing and non-believing) that Brigham Young created the culture in which the horrific Mountain Meadows Massacre could take place. Historians disagree on whether or not Young directly commissioned the massacre. Young was instrumental in driving Mormon paranoia against outsiders. Brigham Young’s 19th wife, Ann Eliza Young doesn’t have many flattering things to say about Brigham. Brigham Young governed his state of Deseret as an autocrat. Journal of Discourses reveals dozens of horrifically racist things that Brigham said. Of course he was a jerk.
Wilcox should be released from his calling and his teaching position. The Church must give his statements it’s strongest possible condemnation.
The Church must take a hard stand because this is too prevalent and current measures have not stamped it out.
President Nelson must keep his word to the NAACP and the other organizations that he has so publicly stated that he has made friends with. Wilcox must be replaced this very next Conference.
JCS: I’d be willing to bet that the Q12 wants to release and replace Brad Wilcox from the General YM Presidency. But they want to do so on their own terms. If they replace him soon, it will appear as if the Internet mob (a.k.a. Wheatandtares.org) made it happen. That’s bad PR and the Church hates bad PR. Did the Church implement Sam Young’s suggestions when he made them? No, they excommunicated him, waited a while, and then followed some of his recommendations. My prediction: Brad Wilcox will retain his calling. Brad Wilcox will continue to speak at youth firesides. But behind the scenes I can only imagine the “wise counsel” he’ll be receiving.
The church finds itself in a precarious position (again) when crafting their ‘Bradgate’ response. Common sense would dictate Wilcox be disciplined firmly and openly. Anything less represents implicit endorsement of his misguided opinions. I am pleasantly surprised that the overwhelming response across the belief spectrum is one of disgust and disappointment. In my own circle of family, friends and colleagues, there exists a unanimity of thought that Wilcox’s overdue repentance process must include tangible consequences.
Perhaps the worst possible outcome would be that Wilcox continues his magical mystery tour this Sunday in Edmonton and next week in CA. Followed of course by grand appearances at an EFY near you. Messages will be sent. Hearts may be hardened. Tough decisions for LDS Inc.
Thanks Mary Ann. As always, great content here. I am encouraged that the higher councils of the church have women participating. I would be extremely curious if any of the women there have ever disagreed with one of the apostles. Sister Eubanks seems to have the tenacity to raise her voice and I have heard that when the 15 meet they are free to speak their minds, but I fear that women are expected to “know their place” when they are invited I no the room. In any case, this example is not being followed in the ward and stake councils that I have been involved in for the last 15 years. While women do most of the busy work and have a better pulse on the ward and it’s members than the men do, they very seldom do any speaking in our councils. They don’t get to participate in Bishopric meetings where most of the callings and decisions are actually made. They are more brought in to help with the execution of the plans.
This is a great addition to the discussion of this nightmare. Thank you, Mary Ann.
Elisa, completely agree with you about Terryl Givens minus the orthodoxy garbage.
Mary, thank you for enumerating the ways in which women aren’t allowed contribute to the kingdom of God. It was difficult to read but important to ponder.
The OP’s bullet points of Wilcox’s assertions remind me of homework assignments we would receive in Philosophy 205, Introduction to Formal Logic, when I was a student at BYU. While most of the course centered on deductive and formal logic, we did spend time on inductive fallacies. Our professor would give us paragraphs from books, magazine articles, copies of BYU forum speaker speeches, and we would read through them to identify inductive fallacies using a fallacy index (you know what they look like, post hoc ergo propter hoc, false dilemma, ad hominem, appeal to authority, false analogy, etc.).
The compilation of Wilcox’s assertions you put together here is the most target rich content for identifying inductive fallacies I think I have ever read. If I were teaching Philosophy 205 today, this is all I would need for students to complete the exercise on faulty arguments. It’s staggering how bad it is. It struck me as awful when I listened to his talk in its entirety, but the way you have organized his content here…I’m stunned all over again. It’s just so glaringly bad. Offensive, wrong, and just bad thinking and reasoning.
Regarding Randy Bott’s comments to the Washington Post, as Joanna Brooks explains in her book, Mormonism and White Supremacy, Bott was speaking the church’s official teachings on the matter–even if dated and aged and ignored by any thinking member. Certainly what Bott said was outright stupid and wrong, but Brooks makes the point that what Bott said in his interview with the Washington Post had never been officially and explicitly repudiated by the church despite the 1978 revelation. We all know the church responded with a form of denial after the Post article was published, but the church’s response failed to honestly account for the church’s teachings throughout much of the twentieth century and why otherwise capable and bright teachers like Bott could continue to harbor such false beliefs.
My point is the church continues to be culpable for people like Wilcox. Until the church faces the issues Wilcox has pushed to the surface with a greater sense of institutional integrity, transparency and proactivity, I’m afraid we’ll continue to see these false narratives bubble up out of the corners of CES and among members.
And there is another problem people like Wilcox create. He was sent to Alpine to strength the testimonies of the youth? I can tell you right now my kids would have been aghast and would have pinned me down the moment we drove home, “Who was that man and why was he teaching so many offensive and wrong ideas?” And once again, I would have been left to discredit a called leader of the church. My kids when they were adolescents–like many kids in the church that age–aren’t stupid, They do their own research. We are looking at Wilcox’s talk as adults, but my guess is many of the youth who listened were as appalled and repelled as we are. My teens didn’t like going to seminary because they would rather cut; they didn’t like going to seminary because it was so didactic and such a stage show. Wilcox validates the arguments they brought to me begging not to attend seminary. The church needs to realize many of our youth are smart and critical thinkers and pompous performers like Wilcox are a turn off.
When I was going up, we all rolled our eyes but kept attending because we didn’t know any better and didn’t really have options. The culture was so much a part of social and business life that those of us on the Wasatch Front didn’t consider leaving the church.
Today’s young people are different and they won’t put up with Wilcox’s type of blatant prejudice and insensitivity. They have options, and will use them.
The church is at a crossroads and must decide whether it wants young people to stay in the church or not. If the desire is to keep young people, then the general authorities must remove Wilcox from his positions of authority and must do the same for any other leader who displays such prejudice.
Thanks, Mary Ann. This is great. I can’t take credit for this idea, but someone on one of the blogs mentioned that a big reason why we have things like this happen is because we don’t have any trained theologians in our church. Mormonism has always been anti-intellectual, but it’s become increasingly more so and that means that we don’t have folks whose job it is to call out such absurdities as spewed by Wilcox, Bytheway, etc. And we also, as members, aren’t encouraged to create our own theologies, which means when things like this happen, true believers don’t even blink and those of us who are more nuanced believers lose their sh*t. Theology often helps mollify and contextualized difficult and complex scriptural and moral issues. But of course, that’s another problem because one other thing about Wilcox’s rhetoric (which some folks have mentioned) is how he not only lies but also condescendingly vastly oversimplifies (“whitewashes”?) history, doctrine, policy, etc. And as I said in the comments on another post on W & T, besides the awfulness of his presentation on a number of levels, the other damage he’s doing is letting members know that they shouldn’t be asking hard questions and should just blindly accept his lies. And this is all aimed at the young people of the church, which makes everything he’s done that much more egregious. Sadly, while Wilcox may eventually go the way of Paul H. Dunn, there are too many people in leadership who believe precisely what he does to allow anything much to change.
Why does everyone make such a big deal out of these things and some of the comments are just as bad as BW’s talk. As far as I am concerned none of this affects my eternal salvation unless I like others start complaining about everything that is said or done in the church. We cannot tell the Lord what to do or how to run his church. I guess we can make suggestions but that’s different than all this commenting on every little unimportant thing. Where did the idea that we can’t become queens and priestesses come from? That’s new to me every time I go to the temple, I am confirmed that we can. I also have no doubt in my mind that if there were no priesthood holders around, I could bless someone if needed and the Lord would accept that. My how we are all so willing to jump on the bandwagon and criticize everything that is said or done in the church Polygamy was practiced in the ancient days and look how we are living now determined that all lesbians, gays and any and every practice they do is fine and must be accepted. After all they were born that way and they can’t help it.
But let’s not forget that Joseph Smith and Brigham young were polygamists. What kind of hypocrites are we becoming?
LDS leadership’s response to the Randy Bott affair was amazingly quick and surprisingly direct. The LDS response actually repudiated, flat out denied, a variety of folk justifications for the racial priesthood and temple ban (without really acknowledging they had been taught by local and general leaders for decades and decades). No such response seems forthcoming for the Brad Wilcox statements. The difference? Partly it’s that the Bott episode broke in the national media, in the Washington Post. If the Wilcox story goes national, then maybe the Church will take some action. Once upon a time LDS leadership would not be swayed by bad PR; they just dug in their heels and pushed change off a few more years so it could be done by revelation (wink, wink) rather than as a response to bad PR. So bad PR used to delay LDS action. Now, bad PR is the *only* thing that spurs meaningful change.
I think the Gospel Topics Essays are losing ground in terms of representing some “official” LDS position or explanation about this or that LDS doctrine. They are not now and have never been featured by speakers at General Conference. They get referred to in curriculum footnotes sometimes, but they are never highlighted as lessons topics or discussions. I think the Essays were sort of a trial run at a more detailed treatment of tricky issues. They were an attempt by the leadership to engage with those issues in order to benefit local leaders (who needed some material to work with to answer questions by members) and the general membership of the Church. But I think the leadership sees them as a failed effort and would almost rather forget they were ever published. More members were damaged by the Essays than were helped. Granted, that’s the fault of two generations of Correlation and bad teaching, but the ugly fact is that the general membership just can’t handle direct and truthful discussions of those tricky issues. The leadership is happier to have folks like Wilcox out there misleading the youth (because you can fool some of the people all of the time) than doing the hard work of pursuing the tough path of upgrading LDS doctrinal and historical teaching and actually teaching the membership something new that was begun with the Essays.
Connie,
You can’t become a queen and a priestess unto God. Depending on when you went to the temple, you are a queen and a priestess to your husband or to the New and Everlasting Covenant, but not to God. The gifts of the spirit, including the gift of healing, are available to all Jesus’s disciples. You shouldn’t have to wait until there are no priesthood holders around. You should be able to use the gifts God gave you without being arbitrarily denied them because you are a woman. I don’t believe that women are less than or are eternally limited. But I am absolutely against church policies that place women, because of their gender, in a hierarchy below men. I’m against policies that limit women’s participation in building the kingdom of God. “All are alike unto God.” It’s time the church actually believed that.
“When you are set apart in a calling or as a missionary, you serve with priesthood authority.” Well, as I shared in my mission memoir, it was certainly inconvenient when I asked multiple Elders to perform the baptism of my investigator after Church and was repeatedly told no and “I don’t feel like getting wet,” and the investigator finally left without being baptized while I was trying to get ANYONE to cooperate. Where was my so-called priesthood power? Nice try. Not buying it.
I second the sentiment expressed in many of the comments and in the OP about Wilcox just saying the quiet part out loud. What he said appears to be common belief among much of the leadership and membership. He’s been giving the talk for quite some time and few in attendance appeared to have batted an eye before. It is unclear why what he said caught attention now, but it did.
A big difference, though is that Wilcox is saying this stuff out loud. Other leaders tiptoe carefully around it and speak in far less boneheaded tones.
A possible Bott 3.0 is John Bytheway. Bear in mind that what Wilcox said about the priesthood ban echoes what Bytheway wrote in a recent publication: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/soisdf/john_bytheway_chose_the_words_but_the_rhetorical/
“Why don’t women hold priesthood keys? I don’t know. It’s not my call. But it is a legitimate question, a fair question, and worthy of discussion. So often in life, we get stuck asking questions, but not all the right ones. This is not the only question to ask. There are a lot more: Why didn’t anyone have the priesthood from about AD 100 until 1829 (except for John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, I suppose?) How fair is that? No one had the chance to be baptized? No one had the opportunity to receive the comforting gift of the Holy Ghost? No one had the chance to go to the temple? For seventeen centuries? Here’s another question: Why did only the tribe of Levi have the priesthood during earlier times? Were the tribes of Asher or Dan or Naphtali out demanding they have it too? And here’s another one–why don’t women need the priesthood in order to attend the temple? President James E. Faust taught: ‘In His infinite wisdom, the Lord requires worthy brethren to wear the mantle of the priesthood in order to enter the temple, but He permits the sisters to enter solely by virtue of their personal worthiness'”
Bytheway is very much like Wilcox. An EFY celebrity with a history of giving youth talks. A jocular personality that always veers fundamentalist. Someone who does not know how to handle sensitive topics in an academic and scholarly way, but advocates hero-worshipping and treating the leaders as infallibles. Someone who has to be careful now when they speak, because people are recording. Media outlets and blogs are awaiting juicy phrases laden with casual racism and sexism to showcase and react about.
“I also have no doubt in my mind that if there were no priesthood holders around, I could bless someone if needed and the Lord would accept that”
Un oh, connie lee brower, treading in dangerous territory there. But seriously, I can see the seeds of PIMOism are in you, they just need a little more time to sprout.
Chadwick and Zach,
I’m glad that you both learned about women being in the higher councils. It was reported in several media outlets when it first happened in 2015. Lots of good things for women in the Church during the 2010s. Without the external pressure from Let Women Pray, Wear Pants to Church, and Ordain Women, I don’t know that church leaders would’ve been as willing to consider as many visible changes for female members and leaders. Another cool element that I don’t know if many people are aware of is that professional historians were hired on in the Church History department as early as 2011 to specialize in women’s history. This Deseret News article from 2016 does a good job summarizing improvements for women in the Church made from 2012 to 2016: https://www.deseret.com/2016/2/8/20581994/women-hired-by-lds-church-history-department-making-huge-strides-in-mormon-women-s-history
As happy as I am about all those improvements, I’m not wild about Brother Wilcox using them to prove that women have all the influence they need in this church. It took a LOT of external and internal pressure on church leaders just to get us to this point. You can’t see that unless you look closely at the timeline, though.
Connie Lee Bower, I wouldn’t be so sure that “none of this affects [your] eternal salvation.” I think many members will be surprised to discover that Jesus was more concerned about how much bigotry you overlooked and excused than, say, how much coffee you drank.
connie lee brower –
It’s not just the offensive-to-many-women explanation for early and pioneer-era polygamy. It’s that the church will not, and apparently not to its dying breath, clearly state that mortal polygamy is over. I remember Elder Christofferson once saying that we are in a “no time.” This does psychic damage to girls and women. This face-saving insistence on not disavowing it is a big part of why young women are leaving the church. My daughters, once they tumbled to the facts, felt they had no choice but to leave.
Say the switch is flipped, and we’re in a “yes time.”Are you okay with your young daughter becoming the third wife of a forty-five year old man? The answer may be, Oh, but that will never happen. Great. Then SAY it will never happen. If our leaders loved women as much as they say they do, they would take care of this.
This is fascinating to see that ALL of the youth speakers use this tactic of avoiding answering a question by answering it with another question. But then they pose all of these additional questions, none of which we have any answers for except “people have been suffering for years, so buckle up because life is one bumpy ride.” Because we don’t know why God does what he does. Even though we have a prophet, and we would miss him if we walked away. But he can’t be expected to answer important questions like these; he’s too busy inspiring leaders on how to reorganize the Irvine-Rancho Santa Margarita-Mission Viejo stake boundaries.
Neal A. Maxwell:
“There are so many people in the Church, brothers and sisters, waiting to be offended. And it doesn’t take long. If one has a chip on his or her shoulder, you can’t make it through the foyer, so to speak, without getting it knocked off.”
Bottgate 1.0 was not just national news; it happened as Mitt ran for President. Version 2.0 is unlikely to garner such a response, though perhaps if the NAACP were to put out a public statement expressing its deep disappointment in the slow (i.e., nonexistent) official response from the LDS church that might change
A personal reference regarding the “placing of women on a pedestal” rhetoric that has been circulating for years (Oaks and Ballard primarily going on the record after pressure from Ordain Women squeezed them to give some answers), and was semi-officially promoted by the Church via Wilcox’s talk:
I have four boys. How are they supposed to feel and then interact when Wilcox or other leaders tell audiences that women are so good that they don’t need the priesthood, but men do need it? I am not saying men have it bad in the church, they have held the power exclusively forever. But this teaching is at the very least confusing, and at its worst is demoralizing to boys and men when they equate priesthood with a crutch needed to be as righteous or as good as the women of the church.
I was in a Sacrament Meeting years ago when the counselor conducting took a few moments at the end to comment on the talks and close the meeting. There had been a departing sister missionary who spoke that day. He took the opportunity to announce with tearful emotion that, “Elder missionaries are special, but Sister missionaries are sacred.” It took all my power to not say something. But I knew it would not go well and only tag me as a perceived jerk.
In my estimation it doesn’t benefit the women of the Church to falsely elevate them in this regard, nor does it assist the men to either make them question their inherent righteousness or give them a BS statement to parrot to their female peers or family.
This explanation is toxic to all church members.
Tangential to the topic. There have been some comments on at least one of the related posts about the anti-racism course that ultimately was not published by Deseret Book. It seems to be available:
https://btbacademy.thinkific.com/courses/lds-anti-racism-101-abandoning-attitudes-and-actions-of-prejudice
Jack, a couple of points. 1) It is human nature to get offended and there are times when offendedness is warranted and not getting offended is problematic. Jim Crow laws and all lines of defense for Jim Crow offended me and they should offend you too. I find people who deny that the Holocaust happened offensive. If they’re too vocal and in-your-face in their denial, I will say something negative to their faces and distance myself from them.
2) There are times when offendedness is over-the-top. But it isn’t those reacting with shock to Wilcox’s words who are over-the-top. No, it is Wilcox’s offendedness at women, questioners, and critics that is thin-skinned, ridiculous, and over-the-top. He embarrasses himself with his overreactive antics.
John W,
I agree that we might be legitimately offended by one thing or another. I for one am offended by a promiscuous culture that has destroyed the American family. Even so, I think Neal A. Maxwell was suggesting that there a members of the church who are *waiting* to be offended. The point being–the saints should not be easily offended. “Charity is not easily provoked.”
Why is the logic in Wilcox’s apologetics so flawed?
Because the US university system has devolved from its actual purpose- teaching people how to think and methodologically answering the great questions, into a network of overpriced technical institutes.
To be fair, in today’s technical world, kids need to process a great deal of content to survive, and most careers are technically trades, so there isn’t as much time for things like logical fallacies https://blogs.iwu.edu/library/files/2017/02/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.jpg ,
By my count, Wilcox proposed 20 of the 24 fallacies on this particular list.
It’s particularly sad when professors of religion haven’t been taught classical thought. And sadly, without this, CES and the religion department are not functioning at a university-level in a traditional sense, they have slipped into trade/skill acquisition, which in this subject equates to rudimentary discipline/discipleship (on the positive side) or indoctrination (more negatively put).
Jack, you mention people “waiting to be offended.” I gather what you mean here is that there are people who almost get a rush out of taking offense and pounce on the slightest most seemingly innocent opportunities to express their offendedness. You say you get offended at “promiscuous culture” that has “destroyed the…family” in the US. I remember when I was at BYU in 1998 when the movie TItanic came out with an artistic nude scene. I remember the clamor at BYU and the Mormon community over the movie and how it was offensive and should have been rated R. Seemed like out-of-place offendedness there. I remember Dallin H. Oaks getting offended over women wearing short and tight-fitting clothes, calling them “walking pornography.” Seems like out-of-place offendedness there, not to mention objectification of women and justification of some men’s inability to control themselves. I remember the church and its members getting up in arms about the legalization of same-sex marriage and organizing campaigns against its legalization in California. They claimed that same-sex marriage would destroy the family. Since its legalization throughout the US, I haven’t heard much about how same-sex marriage has destroyed anything or what negative effect it has had at all. Probably because those claiming that it would destroy the family never had a leg to stand on. In fact, quite the opposite. I’ve heard members say that the passage of same-sex marriage has been a blessing for them and their LGBTQ child, because it has been a step forward toward normalizing same-sex relationships throughout the general culture and helping their loved one fit in. It seems that there have been a lot of believers “waiting to get offended” over LGBTQ rights issues.
Inasmuch as ridiculous over-the-top offendedness is a competition, I would say that the believing Mormon community takes the cake. They win by a long shot against ex-Mormons, PIMOs, and liberal middle-path attendees, a good number of whom seem pretty thick-skinned and willing to put up with a lot of crap. Believing Mormons are very easily offended. Brad Wilcox is a snowflake who can’t take it when someone so much as mentions what appears to be a legitimate concern about church history and policy. Instead of trying to talk objectively about the concern (as do good apologists like Patrick Mason and Terryl Givens) he delivers a talk that insults about everyone he can think of and acts like a big crybaby. He represents out-of-place offendedness on steroids. Many of the folks complaining about Wilcox’s talks on this blog appear to be still willing to attend church, talk things out, call spades spades, and hold people accountable.
So you wanting to thumb your nose about people legitimately complaining about Wilcox’s talk is nothing but projection. The real folks getting constantly offended and bent out of shape over stupid crap are many of the most orthodox leaders and members who see everything in black and white and act like victims the minute someone mentions the slightest bit of critique, no matter how legitimate, no matter how well-evidenced.
Counselor,
Agreed that the pedestalization of women is detrimental to everyone, not just women. It irritates my husband as well, especially since he’s skilled with kids, naturally tidy, and very observant. The bumbling husband stereotype who is helpless without his “better half” is just wrong in his case, not to mention offensive.
It doesn’t make any sense to have predominantly male leadership in a religion if men are innately spiritually deficient. The male heads of both wards and families are also primarily responsible to receive revelation for their respective groups. It’s blatantly contradictory, but everyone seems to just play along.
John,
I was offended by the movie Titanic because it was the most godless piece of junk ever committed to celluloid. It was an epic 250 million dollar chick-flick made by a director who has no sense of what human beings are made of. He does better when he’s directing aliens or terminators.
As to the rest of your comment: We can all find something to be offended about without having to look too far. The trick is to be truly informed by the gospel so that we’re not fighting the wrong battles.
With regard to the destruction of the family–it’s been happening for a while now. But it was in the early 70s when it began to fall apart like nobody’s business. There’s no question in my mind that the cultural changes of the 60s and 70s played a major role in shredding the family. Fatherlessness is now the number one social problem in the United States–IMO.
Jack, your comments come off (and appeared to be inferred as such by the readers on here judging by the downvotes) as shaming people for taking issue with Wilcox’s talk. Look, Wilcox has apologized for part of his talk (possibly nudged to do so by his employers, but perhaps he did so out of his own volition as well). BYU issued a statement expressing “deep concern” over Wilcox’s remarks. So your point is moot. You are in effect attacking BYU and other church leaders by attacking those who take issue with Wilcox’s comments.
J Bytheway and B Wilcox are theatre. They are doctrinally challenged and poor apologists. But they have a speaking style that appeals to some. Unfortunately, their theatrics are no longer acceptable and should be halted immediately. Deseret Book needs to retire the Bytheway and Wilcox books ASAP. Didn’t we learn anything with the Dunn debacle? There is good literature out there. DB is an embarrassment. Do they still have testimony gloves? The whole LDS book, religious paraphernalia, and souvenir business needs to be critically reviewed.
Thank you Mary Ann for providing the DN link. I appreciate the opportunity to learn these things.
connie lee brower, just because something isn’t a big deal to you, does that really mean it can’t be a big deal to others? I mean, what’s the purpose of all those hours sitting in the pews if we don’t learn how to practice empathy?
“[W]omen have all the influence that they possibly could have.”
This statement is refutes the promised blessings of the temple, where the endowed are anointed to become queens and priestesses, albeit not to God directly. According to Brad Wilcox, women lack the capacity for any eternal increase of influence. You’ve got what you’ve got, gals, and it is what it is. Moreover, it seems Brad Wilcox has not received his Second Anointing because he certainly didn’t get that memo.
“[A]nd yet you waltz right in. Just waltz right in! So maybe the question we should be asking is, what do women bring with them from the premortal life that men learn through ordination?”
Let’s see, what do women bring with them from the premortal life that allows them to waltz right in? Why, I suppose it must be “Moves like Jagger!” What else could it be? Of course, I’m beginning to feel more than a bit shortchanged by my own ordination.
Jack are you sure the problem is “promiscuous culture”. As America is the most religious country in first world, and also has the highest rate of single parent families, there may be some other reasons.
US has about 22% Single parent families, Canada 15%, some parts of Europe less than 10%.
As with the abortion debate the left has different solutions from the right.
I have heard you express concern about the number of single parent families before, but not previously that it was promiscuous culture. Do you have a solution in a secular society for promiscuous culture? Figures show that religious folk have similar rates of single parent families to non religious.
Other countries have ways to reduce the number of single parent families, for example in much of Europe there are 3 and 4 generation households, so if a woman gets herself pregnant (they do it by themselves ?) the family cares and there is not a single parent. There are sex education, and birth control, which will reduce the number of single parent families, but maybe not promiscuity. Poverty and abortion are also factors.
If you want to reduce the numbers of single parent families there are causes you can support. If you want to stop promiscuity, control peoples sexuality, you are not going to get anywhere. You will fail, not good for mental health.
So if the number of single parent families is your obsession perhaps you should advocate for the things/causes that can reduce the numbers, and don’t get involved in other peoples sex lives.
Geoff,
I try to avoid judging individuals–but I think it can be appropriate at times to judge a culture. And I believe our decadent culture is on the cusp of reaping the whirlwind–if we don’t mend our ways soon. And so I’m all for preaching marital fidelity and familial responsibility. Improvement in those two areas alone could revolutionize the West.
Richard_K,
I think Elder Wilcox was suggesting that there may be a positive reason–rather than a negative reason–as to why women are not ordained to the priesthood. And if he’s right–wouldn’t that be something to think about?
Jack,
If you must declare that everyone of a certain gender is inherently deficient in order to explain the lack of women’s ordination, then that is NOT a positive explanation.
Stray observations:
– All these redirect questions like, “Why did God do X thing that seems so unfair?” sit heavy on the shelf because the only explanation that makes any kind of sense is, “He didn’t. This is all made up.”
– Mary, your list of all the ways women are othered in the church is mind-blowing and heartbreaking. I’m ashamed to say some of those had not yet occurred to me. Apparently none of them have occurred to BW.
– Somebody mentioned scholars’ consensus that BY created the culture that led to the MMM. I know I said this recently on another thread but I feel strongly about it: It’s racist to focus on BY’s nebulous involvement with violence against white people and ignore his well-documented direct orders to massacre whole populations of native people. Folks, we have a long way to go.
I’ve never understood the thinking of ‘polygamy can’t be that bad, I exist because of it.’ Well, yeah, a lot of people also exist because of r*pe , nobody is saying that’s a good thing.
Mary Ann, I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. There may positive reasons as to why men are ordained and women are not. Just as there are positive reasons for why women bear children and men do not. (I hope I don’t get lambasted for that one.)
Jack,
The corollary to motherhood is fatherhood. That is one benefit that I will give to Brother Wilcox, that at least he didn’t pull the priesthood/motherhood comparison.
Jack,
“There may positive reasons as to why men are ordained and women are not.”
What your saying in essence is that God had a reason. We may not know the full extent of it or exactly why. But God’s ways are God’s ways, so let’s just accept that that is the way that it is. You come off as saying that the church is basically a reflection of God’s will, the leaders’ words (at least when in unison) are a reflection of God’s words, and that we are wrong to question. We should treat the leaders as nearly infallible. Uh, no. The reason that men have the priesthood and women do not is because of tradition, which is deeply set in and very difficult to change without provoking strong negative reactions on the part of traditionalist members. However, tradition can clearly change. It has before in Mormonism. Some traditions should change. Many churches ordain women to the priesthood and function just fine.
“The reason that men have the priesthood and women do not is because of tradition…”
Yes, that’s possible. But to make an emphatic statement that it must be so is overreaching, IMO. No one really knows that that must be the case. I’m of the opinion that workings of the priesthood have a lot to do with the maintenance and navigation of sacred space. And so, while things may seem a little uneven from our lowly perspective down in the trenches, the distribution of priesthood powers make a lot more sense when seen from a more sacred vantage point. My sense is that as we continue to cross the broad threshold of the Millennium we will see more and more vestiges of the matriarchal priesthood appearing on the horizon–until it is revealed in its fulness at some point when the earth is prepared to receive it. But it won’t be identical to the patriarchal priesthood–though it is certainly equal in importance and value.
Why is everyone dumping on Brother Wilcox? The First Presidency stated in 1949 that the decision not to give the blacks the Priesthood was a commandment of God. The Church has refused to admit it was wrong. So let’s give Bro. Wilcox a pass. He is not the problem. The Church is the problem,
“the distribution of priesthood powers make a lot more sense when seen from a more sacred vantage point”
Which begs the question of what a sacred vantage point even is or how we know someone is viewing something from that “sacred vantage point.” It is like you’re saying, “ah, well if you just accept at face value what the LDS leaders are saying as generally true, then it all makes sense.” Circular logic.
Well, John, it’s just one of those things. How can anyone be convinced of anything sacred unless they experience for themselves? But once we do experience it–or enough of it–there comes a time when we, like Joseph Smith, know it and we know that God knows it and we cannot deny it.
Re: What is a sacred vantage: One way of thinking about it might be to view the church merely as an earthly institution and to judge it solely by a materialistic criteria. And then compare that view with an image of how the church might look from an eschatological PoV. What a world of difference!
Jesus did not have good things to say about those who give offense.
Another example to add to John W’s list was Elaine Dalton’s comments about the women at the nationwide women’s protest the day after President Trump’s inauguration. She clearly did not understand the reasons for such a groundswell.
It is perplexing to me when some people are more offended about people who are offended by offensive things, than they are about the offenses and offenders themselves.
Jack, “compare that view with an image of how the church might look from an eschatological PoV”
Ah yes, more mumbo jumbo.
John W: “Ah yes, more mumbo jumbo.”
Is that a step up or a step down from circular logic?
***
Sasso: “It is perplexing to me when some people are more offended about people who are offended by offensive things, than they are about the offenses and offenders themselves.”
Does that hold true if the “offensive thing” is something like abortion?