Does Wilcox think he has an answer?

[blazerb]

In the tumult surrounding the odious things said by Brad Wilcox, I'm curious Does anyone think he has an answer to the question, "Why would God keep the priesthood from the world until 1829?" I would be curious to hear how he finishes his very offensive thought.

Also, I'm hoping that my wording is not offensive. I genuinely think it's a good question. Wilcox probably meant it as a thought-stopping cliché.

[Palerider]

Answering (or attempting to) the priesthood restriction question is like touching the third rail.

The church DOES NOT want to go there. So, like a still steaming pile of horse manure, the best thing they can come up with is to avoid it.

If they say it came from God but they don't know why, they look like idiots.

If they say it was inspired by God because of something that happened in the pre-existence, you have God discriminating against Blacks for something they can't even remember.

If they say it was a decision made and maintained by bigoted men, it means that leadership led the church astray for some 130 odd years.

They can't touch this hot mess without getting some on them. In their limited understanding the best thing to do is avoid an explanation.

Which means that there is NO communication between God and the leadership of the church or they would "receive" an answer.

It's an impossible situation. Either the restriction was the right thing to do or the church is just as apostate as any other religion and in the words of Brad Wilcox they are only "playing at church".

[Palerider]

"Why would God keep the priesthood from the world until 1829?" I would be curious to hear how he finishes his very offensive thought.

When I was in the mission field, this question was answered by saying that the world would not have accepted or permitted the "restoration" any earlier than the 1800's because it was so wicked, benighted and unaccepting of new truth. But with the discovery of America (the promised land) and God moving in the hearts and minds of men in the "Age of Enlightenment" the world was prepared for the restoration.

Which concept is pretty restrictive of God's ability to get something done whenever He wants it done.

[Linked]

Like you said blazerb, I think he said it to stop people investigating mormonism's historical racism. Basically saying that question pales in comparison to the church's priesthood narrative. They have a nice clean story about apostasy and restoration. That line of reasoning leads to another of his gaffs, that other people are just playing church because they don't have the restored priesthood.

But that story of apostasy and restoration is only nice and clean if you don't dig into it at all. And the church does a good job of keeping members from digging into it at all.

The world was so bad it needed the US and Joseph Smith to come save them (oh, and a side of Jesus).

[fetchface]

It's an interesting strategy to try to resolve a plot hole by pointing to another plot hole. What's funny is, it does seem to work if you aren't thinking too hard.

I used to do this, point to the awful stuff in the Old Testament to explain the awful stuff that I saw around me in my lived church experience.

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. They never will.

[wtfluff]

In the tumult surrounding the odious things said by Brad Wilcox, I'm curious Does anyone think he has an answer to the question, "Why would God keep the priesthood from the world until 1829?" I would be curious to hear how he finishes his very offensive thought.

Also, I'm hoping that my wording is not offensive. I genuinely think it's a good question. Wilcox probably meant it as a thought-stopping cliché.

I don't know if Wilcox's question is a thought-terminating cliché, but I'm pretty sure that I can list a few of the answers he could give that are definitely thought terminating clichés:

• We don't know
• God's ways are not our ways (The "polite" way of blaming it on Elohim.)
• You'll find out when you're dead. (Or their "pretty" way of saying it: 'All will be revealed in the afterlife.')

My personal favorite is the last one.

[Red Ryder]

Because Joseph Smith didn’t make up Mormonism until 1820?

[moksha]

[Culper Jr.]

In the tumult surrounding the odious things said by Brad Wilcox, I'm curious Does anyone think he has an answer to the question, "Why would God keep the priesthood from the world until 1829?" I would be curious to hear how he finishes his very offensive thought.

Yeah, I was thinking about why he would pose that question and posted on ex-mo reddit about it. I was always taught by the church that the priesthood was taken away and had to be later restored because of the wickedness and apostasy of men. So if you play that out, is he tacitly saying that blacks are more wicked and apostate so they had to wait 150 additional years to get the priesthood? It's like one of those "deepities" where they say something in a way that sounds like it should be profound but is in reality idiotic. Yobisbo called it "a religion made out of soundbites" which was spot on. It's designed to stop thought... "hey, don't focus on this problematic thing, look at this other thing over here". But if you really think deeply about the thing he's trying to distract you with to stop you from thinking about the church's racism, it actually illustrates how deeply racist the church really is.

[Red Ryder]

It's like one of those "deepities" where they say something in a way that sounds like it should be profound but is in reality idiotic. Yobisbo called it "a religion made out of soundbites" which was spot on. It's designed to stop thought... "hey, don't focus on this problematic thing, look at this other thing over here". But if you really think deeply about the thing he's trying to distract you with to stop you from thinking about the church's racism, it actually illustrates how deeply racist the church really is.

Bingo!

“Some people think…”
The question you ought to be asking…
If you leave me (us)…
Insert _______ carefully worded denial…

[blazerb]

I love the "Question we should be asking" memes.

Brad Wilcox meme.jpg (49.69 KiB) Viewed 3216 times

[stealthbishop]

I love the "Question we should be asking" memes.
Brad Wilcox meme.jpg

I laughed at this one!

[2bizE]

I think after his second apology, he still has little idea of how offensive his comments were. I don’t think any of the YM leadership has a clue.

[blazerb]

This morning I listened to RFM's breakdown of Wilcox's talk. Two random thoughts hit me. First, if the church were confident that the spirit is a real thing that would be noticed when lost, church leaders should be encouraging young adults to take a "Rumspringa" where they experience the world and realize how empty it is. It would bring about stronger faith. However, the church actually asks that young adults pay their own money to go on a mission, where the church exerts as much control over their environment as it possibly can. They know that losing the "spirit" isn't a big deal as people leave the church. What hurts is the loss of friends and family. God is not doing that, I believe.

Second, we have been told that the current method of choosing the leaders of the church guarantees that the church is led by those who have experience and knowledge about how to minister and administer the gospel. However, the fact that Wilcox was even allowed to have these beliefs shows that the leaders are either ineffective or incompetent. These destructive teachings have been around for a long time. They have been causing embarrassment for the church for a long time. Long before Randy Bott, a good leader would have gathered the GA's and CES teachers to discuss how to deal with the history. They would have sought out advice from persons of color and women who could help them understand their experience and how to frame the issues in the least harmful way. Apparently these titans of business can't even figure out how to handle the obvious problems that they know will come up again and again. I used to think that 19-year-old missionaries were the biggest threat to the church. Now I think ineffective old men are.

[Palerider]

.....a good leader would have gathered the GA's and CES teachers to discuss how to deal with the history.

This is just the problem. There are no good leaders.

A truly good leader would be able to see the problems for what they really are. An indictment of the veracity of the church and it's foundations.

They then would disavow Joseph Smith and all "modern revelation" produced by him and his successors and a truly good leader would then announce that the LDS church was going to return to a Biblical Christianity.

Such a move solves all of the problems of polygamy, racism, false temple worship, wealth hoarding and priesthood over-reach. They can be viewed for what they are.

Then the church can go about building a new organization as closely aligned with Christ's teachings as possible, using their wealth to sensibly help the poor and those who suffer.

What I don't think they realize is that membership could in fact increase instead of declining and members would be much happier being part of such a great organization.

But it'll never happen....

[blazerb]

A truly good leader would be able to see the problems for what they really are. An indictment of the veracity of the church and it's foundations.

They then would disavow Joseph Smith and all "modern revelation" produced by him and his successors and a truly good leader would then announce that the LDS church was going to return to a Biblical Christianity.

Such a move solves all of the problems of polygamy, racism, false temple worship, wealth hoarding and priesthood over-reach. They can be viewed for what they are.

Then the church can go about building a new organization as closely aligned with Christ's teachings as possible, using their wealth to sensibly help the poor and those who suffer.

And then the Community of Christ would be a much bigger and have many more resources to proclaim peace. But you're right, it'll never happen. I think the lure of power is too great. Giving it up is too much to hope for.