Scrutinizing general conference

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Perhaps you could help us understand the difference between an Official Declaration and an Official Proclamation?    Just reading through the previous proclamations here:   http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

looks like a couple of these were published in the ensign in 1975, and in 1980.  

 

Which proclamation was published in the Ensign in 1975?

Your link only lists four proclamations (the quoted material was published before the proclamation on the family came into existence).

And there are no official declarations in your link.

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Exactly, which speaks volumes as to how the church leadership envisions relationships, family organizations, and the heavenly godhead.  Women don't create worlds, they don't create Adam and eve, the voices of women are also not found in the council in heaven writings in Abraham or Moses, and today women also don't write scriptures, proclaim doctrine, hold keys, or ever preside.  In the temple women do not "rule and reign", they also covenant to obey the Law of the lord, which in the past referred to the husband as presiding "lord".  There is also strong legal coverture inheritance contract language in the endowment which carries over to the proclamation with the word "preside".   Latin Praesidere with prae 'before', and sedre 'sit', to govern and to be head of, to manage, administer, to be in control, to rule, and command, supervise, to officiate.  To sit before or in front is where the 12 and first presidency sit in the conference center which is no accident.   Here's an n-gram chart on usage of the word "preside".  With Oak's talk mormons are fighting to bring the word back in vogue "by divine design".  

I'm literally scratching my head on how you got any of that from what Scott said.

women don't create worlds? They down rule and reign?

I'm seriously confused

[Avatar4321]

25 minutes ago, blueglass said:

revelation > guide  i.e. vision from god > vision from man's mortal water brain

I must have missed that conference talk or where President Packer mentioned anything like that

[wtrdog]

Richard Wilkins wrote the proclamation, this is true. I am a family friend, knew him well. It was a collaborative effort but he was the idea man and original / primary author. Calling the proclamation "revelation" is very dishonest. It's a completely man made document. And one that was designed by a man that wasn't even in a position of priesthood authority. Perhaps Stephanie Meyer was "inspired" when she wrote Twilight, does that make it revelation? At what point is the meaning of a word completely lost? 

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Visions are not the only means of divine revelation. They are one of the least common, as a matter of fact.

 

I personally liked Elder Zwick's talk in which he pulled from Lion king, to "look beyond what you can see."  As Tad walch summarized, "The Lord can widen their view to better understand themselves, others and their spiritual goals."   

[blueglass]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which proclamation was published in the Ensign in 1975?

Your link only lists four proclamations (the quoted material was published before the proclamation on the family came into existence).

And there are no official declarations in your link.

1)  Here you go - look up the excerpts quoted by Benson from the 1845 proclamation in his October 1975 conference talk:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/a-message-to-the-world?lang=eng

2)  yes, the link lists four proclamations

3)  We have OD1, and OD2 as official canonized declarations, why not OP1 - OP5?  that was the question i asked you.   the etymology of "declaration" and "proclamation" is nearly the same if anything a proclamation has greater weight.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Richard Wilkins wrote the proclamation, this is true. I am a family friend, knew him well. It was a collaborative effort but he was the idea man and original / primary author. Calling the proclamation "revelation" is very dishonest. It's a completely man made document. And one that was designed by a man that wasn't even in a position of priesthood authority. Perhaps Stephanie Meyer was "inspired" when she wrote Twilight, does that make it revelation? At what point is the meaning of a word completely lost? 

If I’m presented with a choice between the word of an apostle of Jesus Christ who was a participant in the process and acting in the authority of his calling and second- or third-hand gossip from somebody purporting to have some inside track because he has somebody else as a “family friend,” well, there’s really no contest as to who I’m going to trust. 

I clearly recall that Wilkins was heavily involved in U.N. family conferences and initiatives and that in this he had support from Church leaders, so it’s possible he was among resources whom the apostles drew upon in drafting the wording for the proclamation. But to state or imply that they merely rubber-stamped what he wrote and pencil-whipped it up the line is absurd. It’s beyond absurd if it contradicts the word of an apostle who participated in the process. 

One thing you guys don’t seem to get is that revelation is routinely preceded by fact finding and deliberation which may include consultation with knowledgeable individuals but that the presence of such consultation in no way nullifies the authenticity or divinity of the revelation when it ultimately comes. Joseph Smith understood this when he told the Council of Fifty he didn’t want to be surrounded by a group of “dough heads” or yes-men. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Button Gwinnett]

14 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Richard Wilkins wrote the proclamation, this is true. I am a family friend, knew him well. It was a collaborative effort but he was the idea man and original / primary author. Calling the proclamation "revelation" is very dishonest. It's a completely man made document. And one that was designed by a man that wasn't even in a position of priesthood authority. Perhaps Stephanie Meyer was "inspired" when she wrote Twilight, does that make it revelation? At what point is the meaning of a word completely lost? 

This is a very serious accusation if true and is 180° from what Elder Oaks claimed to be true in his Conference address.  I'm hoping that you can back this assertion up with some evidence otherwise I think you need to apologize and withdraw it. Making such a statement impugns Elder Oaks character and makes him out as an opportunist and a distorter of facts.   I might add, that Elder Oak is one of only 7 remaining apostles that is still alive and was there when the Proclamation was written so by impugning him you are also impugning the character of the other 6 apostles who would be remaining silent and allowing this misstatement of facts to persist thereby you are suggesting a conspiracy within the 12 to distort the truth.  Like I said this is a very serious accusation.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have no such evidence linking this Mr/Bro. Wilkins to the proclamation.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Button Gwinnett]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I’m presented with a choice between the word of an apostle of Jesus Christ who was a participant in the process and acting in the authority of his calling and second- or third-hand gossip from somebody purporting to have some inside track because he has somebody else as a “family friend,” well, there’s really no contest as to who I’m going to trust. 

I clearly recall that Wilkins was heavily involved in U.N. family conferences and initiatives and that in this he had support from Church leaders, so it’s possible he was among resources whom the apostles drew upon in drafting the wording for the proclamation. But to state or imply that they merely rubber-stamped what he wrote and pencil-whipped it up the line is absurd. It’s beyond absurd if it contradicts the word of an apostle who participated in the process. 

One thing you guys don’t seem to get is that revelation is routinely preceded by fact finding and deliberation which may include consultation with knowledgeable individuals but that the presence of such consultation in no way nullifies the authenticity or divinity of the revelation when it ultimately comes. Joseph Smith understood this when he told the Council of Fifty he didn’t want to be surrounded by a group of “dough heads” or yes-men. 

If memory serves me right, both the Sunday School and Primary programs were first grassroots programs that were later incorporated by the church and adopted for the general membership.  It would not be unusual for the church leadership to move based on what is happening around them both within and outside of the church environment.  In fact it would be more unusual if they didn't act based on what was happening both within and out of the church environment.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

If memory serves me right, both the Sunday School and Primary programs were first grassroots programs that were later incorporated by the church and adopted for the general membership.  It would not be unusual for the church leadership to move based on what is happening around them both within and outside of the church environment.  In fact it would be more unusual if they didn't act based on what was happening both within and out of the church environment.

Yes, that’s true about Primary and Sunday School starting first on a local level to meet perceived needs. 

And by his own account, Joseph Smith was influenced to some extent by what was happening around him in going to God in prayer, which, of course, resulted in the First Vision. 

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

This is a very serious accusation if true and is 180° from what Elder Oaks claimed to be true in his Conference address.  I'm hoping that you can back this assertion up with some evidence otherwise I think you need to apologize and withdraw it. Making such a statement impugns Elder Oaks character and makes him out as an opportunist and a distorter of facts.   I might add, that Elder Oak is one of only 7 remaining apostles that is still alive and was there when the Proclamation was written so by impugning him you are also impugning the character of the other 6 apostles who would be remaining silent and allowing this misstatement of facts to persist thereby you are suggesting a conspiracy within the 12 to distort the truth.  Like I said this is a very serious accusation.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have no such evidence linking this Mr/Bro. Wilkins to the proclamation.

Reviewing Elder Oaks' words I think room is left for some writing by others not in the q12.  Says he:

 

Quote

Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised.

It could be that lines were authored by another and the 12 reviewed it, decided which language to use, as it was presented to them.  In the end this might suggest the whole of it wasn't written by some other person but it's possible another wrote it and the 12 used that writing to come up with the final result, keeping most of that which was written. 

In the end, though, its kind of a lame document.  As Hinckley and Oaks suggested, it was just summarizing what has been thought for many years.  Of course it ends up condemning the Church practice of polygamy.  So if we take it as revelation, then great, we have to suggest things like D&C 132 are not of God. 

[Button Gwinnett]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Reviewing Elder Oaks' words I think room is left for some writing by others not in the q12.  Says he:

 

It could be that lines were authored by another and the 12 reviewed it, decided which language to use, as it was presented to them.  In the end this might suggest the whole of it wasn't written by some other person but it's possible another wrote it and the 12 used that writing to come up with the final result, keeping most of that which was written. 

In the end, though, its kind of a lame document.  As Hinckley and Oaks suggested, it was just summarizing what has been thought for many years.  Of course it ends up condemning the Church practice of polygamy.  So if we take it as revelation, then great, we have to suggest things like D&C 132 are not of God. 

But the assertion made, as I interpreted it,  was that this Mr Wilkin's wrote the proclamation and that the 12 merely changed a few words and then added their signature to this completed document

Quote

Richard Wilkins wrote the proclamation, this is true. I am a family friend, knew him well. It was a collaborative effort but he was the idea man and original / primary author.

To assert that this Wilkins gentleman "wrote" the proclamation and was the "Primary Author" runs counter to Elder Oaks assertion of a revelatory process in the coming forth of the proclamation. I would not have pushed back on the assertion if the poster had said that Bro Wilkins ideas had been an influence on the proclamation but he was asserting that the 12 almost plagiarized Wilkin's words and claimed them as their own.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[smac97]

14 hours ago, wtrdog said:

Richard Wilkins wrote the proclamation, this is true. I am a family friend, knew him well. It was a collaborative effort but he was the idea man and original / primary author. Calling the proclamation "revelation" is very dishonest. It's a completely man made document. And one that was designed by a man that wasn't even in a position of priesthood authority. Perhaps Stephanie Meyer was "inspired" when she wrote Twilight, does that make it revelation? At what point is the meaning of a word completely lost? 

Here is what Richard Wilkins had to say about the Proclamation (from a speech he gave at BYU in 1999) (emphases added):

Quote

First of all, we must live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Three and one-half years ago, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a proclamation to the world regarding the centrality and importance of the family unit. The fundamental truths taught in that proclamation must become a central part of our social discourse.

...

Let me become a little personal and depart from my text for a minute at this point to bear you my testimony about the importance of the Church’s proclamation on the family. I was a bishop in Orem when that document was issued at Women’s Conference in September 1995, as I recall. I remember attending that meeting and hearing it read by President Hinckley. My reaction at the time may have been the same reaction that many of you might have had. It was a nice document. It stated things that I believed in, truths that I understood and felt to be true, but I thought it was just a nice statement. I didn’t expect that it would do much, and frankly, at the time, I was rather convinced that the world was on a tack where the world wouldn’t listen. This was a proclamation to the world. In fact, I remember thinking as I drove home from the meeting, and my firm conviction at the time was, that the world not only wouldn’t listen but perhaps couldn’t listen.

In Istanbul I had an opportunity to speak about the proclamation to people who didn’t even know they were hearing the words of a modern prophet. As a result of a four-minute speech that encapsulated a few of the ideas in that proclamation, I saw some amazing things happen. I have since described them as the legal equivalent to the parting of the Red Sea, and it was close to that kind of an event.

As I concluded that conference in Istanbul, I had the privilege of hiking to a mosque in Istanbul, the Süleymaniye. There I saw many of my Moslem brothers and sisters praying on a rug that my guide explained to me represented the tree of life. The tree at the bottom of the rug was in tight bud, but at the top where they placed their hands to pray, the tree was bearing white fruit. The guide explained that if we attained life in the presence of Allah, we would be in his presence and would be able to eat of the fruit of what he called the tree of life. At that moment I had a profound spiritual witness that we are indeed children of the same God. We are all children of the same Heavenly Father. He loves us, and he speaks to all of us through a modern prophet. I felt a kinship with my brothers and sisters there in that mosque that day that has changed my life. I bear you my witness that the proclamation on the family to the world is indeed the word of God to this generation and to the entire world at this time.

So here Bro. Wilkins describes his "reaction" to the Proclamation, which would be rather odd if he had written it.

Here Bro. Wilkins describes his initially lukewarm perception of the Proclamation ("it was just a nice statement . . . I didn't expect that it would do much").  This would be an odd response to the document from its purported "original / primary author.

Here Bro. Wilkins testifies that the Proclamation "is indeed the word of God to this generation."  'Nuff said.

Here are a few more remarks from Bro. Wilkins about the Proclamation (in a 2005 article) (emphases added):

Quote

This skepticism regarding the traditional family, along with other ideas (such as “autonomy rights” for children) was gaining unprecedented academic and political popularity when the Proclamation’s call to fortify positive family relationships was issued—so much so that, while I was profoundly grateful that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had carefully and compassionately called for improving and strengthening the family unit, I frankly wondered whether the plain language of the principles set out in the Proclamation could possibly be heard—let alone understood—by a generation already so besmirched by “the slow stain of the world.”

...

Ten years later, some of the principles set out by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in the Proclamation have been embraced in surprising ways—and not just by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

...

 I left Utah {in June 1996} before the closing night of Fiddler—without shaving my “Tevye” beard—carrying a passport photo that did not comply with BYU’s dress and grooming standards. Melany, shortly before I left, slipped a copy of the Proclamation into my suitcase with a simple explanation: “You may find it helpful,” she said.

Here Bro. Wilkins twice attributes the Proclamation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  And less than a year after it was announced, his wife "slipped a copy" of it into his suitcase as he went abroad, telling him that he "may find it helpful."  This is a mighty strange course of conduct for Sis. Wilkins.  Why would she give Bro. Wilkins a copy of a document of which he was "original / primary author?"

And this account about Bro. Wilkins (from an online newsletter, and describing/summarizing Bro. Wilkins' remarks about his 1996 trip to Istanbul described above) (emphases added):

Quote

As Wilkins walked to the podium, he was loudly hissed.

Having so little time, he fell back upon the Proclamation to the World on the family. Later, as he retold this experience Wilkins admitted that at the time the Proclamation had first come out, he was serving as a Bishop. He read it and thought, "Yes, well, we all know that." Back then he thought little of it, but THAT day in Istanbul, standing before influential representatives from across the world, he knew without a doubt it was an inspired document...one prepared well in advance by Prophets of God, for just such a time as this.

...

He also believes the scripture in the D&C which says, "We should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness,wherein we know them." (D&C 123:13)

He says the FOUNDATION of his work has been "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles.

Again, very strange remarks from the purported "original / primary author" of the Proclamation.

So as between the remarks by Elder Oaks (and, for that matter, by Bro. Wilkins) on the one said and, on the other, the unsubstantiated and axe-grinding say-so of an anonymous online critic of the LDS Church, I think I'll go with the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

This is a very serious accusation if true and is 180° from what Elder Oaks claimed to be true in his Conference address.  I'm hoping that you can back this assertion up with some evidence otherwise I think you need to apologize and withdraw it. Making such a statement impugns Elder Oaks character and makes him out as an opportunist and a distorter of facts.   I might add, that Elder Oak is one of only 7 remaining apostles that is still alive and was there when the Proclamation was written so by impugning him you are also impugning the character of the other 6 apostles who would be remaining silent and allowing this misstatement of facts to persist thereby you are suggesting a conspiracy within the 12 to distort the truth.  Like I said this is a very serious accusation.  I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that you have no such evidence linking this Mr/Bro. Wilkins to the proclamation.

Elder Oaks was one of only seven when he made his remarks.  Now he is one of only six (Elder Hales has now passed on).

And I share your skepticism about the accusation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

But the assertion made, as I interpreted it,  was that this Mr Wilkin's wrote the proclamation and that the 12 merely changed a few words and then added their signature to this completed document

To assert that this Wilkins gentleman "wrote" the proclamation and was the "Primary Author" runs counter to Elder Oaks assertion of a revelatory process in the coming forth of the proclamation. I would not have pushed back on the assertion if the poster had said that Bro Wilkins ideas had been an influence on the proclamation but he was asserting that the 12 almost plagiarized Wilkin's words and claimed them as their own.

I admit I'm not seeing the contradiction in it that you are.  The revelatory process, explained by Oaks, was not to suggest the wording of the document was not already written by another as they made some adjustments here or there.  They considered what was written, apparently, and decided whether the wording, as it was, worked or not.  They made changes if they thought it didn't work or needed adjusting.  The most interesting part of Oaks' explanation was the learning line upon line.  Hinckley and Oaks basically presented it as containing the already decided teachings that had been in the Church for many years before.  It doesn't seem like they learned anything to me, so his claim is an odd one there. 

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Yes, in the temple video female deities are not depicted creating worlds, and in the endowment women do not rule and reign, and no - women were not officially invited to the PEC until 2015.  After that they changed the name to the Priesthood and Family Executive Council.  Yes, I think it was wrong that Sister Okazaki and  the general relief society were rebuffed when they asked to become a member of the executive councils, back in the 90's and I absolutely believe that the 1995 proclamation would be a different and far better product if the Priesthood and Family Executive Council had written the Proclamation to the world on the Family. 

what exactly do you think would be different?

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Reviewing Elder Oaks' words I think room is left for some writing by others not in the q12.  Says he:

 

It could be that lines were authored by another and the 12 reviewed it, decided which language to use, as it was presented to them.  In the end this might suggest the whole of it wasn't written by some other person but it's possible another wrote it and the 12 used that writing to come up with the final result, keeping most of that which was written. 

In the end, though, its kind of a lame document. 

How do you account for its impact on the meeting in Istanbul, as described by Bro. Wilkins (see links posted here)?

I think the Proclamation is anything but lame.  It has been a frequent point of reference for the members of the Church for the last twenty years, and has even had significant international influence.  See, e.g. here (emphases added):

Quote

In June 1996 there was a UN Conference in Istanbul, Turkey...The conference was known as Habitat II. There would be 25,000 participants from across the earth. Today I will be spending most of my time informing you about events that transpired at this conference.

The Habitat II conference was the culmination of a series of 5 conferences designed to develop a "blueprint for international laws for the coming century". Now you understand, these laws would set a precedent and would directly affect the laws made in individual countries of the world. Among those 25,000 participants were many governmental officials, along with many NGOs. (NGOs are non- governmental organizations.) Among the NGOs who were planning on attending was an organization called United Families International and American Mother, Inc. Leaders of these organizations became alarmed when they realized how FEW participants at the conference REPRESENTED TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES, whereas the opposing side had a powerful, well-funded, well-oiled lobbying machine. Foremost among those fighting against the traditional family and religion was an NGO called the Women's Caucus, a US feminist organization headed by Bella Abzug.

In the past 4 conferences, these women had literally DOMINATED the conferences, with their twisted ideology. As one scholar put it, these women have "marginalized parents, ignored the family, denigrated cultural and religious values, and enshrined reproductive and sexual health."

Because of their efforts at the previous 4 conferences, the women's caucus had been extremely influential in the language of the UN document which had already been drafted. At this 5th and final conference, that UN draft would be finalized and adopted, making it international law. Thus far, the drafted document included language in support of same-sex marriages and abortion on demand.

Realizing the lack of support for traditional families, leaders of the United Families International and American Mothers, Inc. thought of Richard Wilkins. Richard had been serving as a Bishop in Provo, was a well-respected professor of law at BYU, and had been very active in fighting for family-values in Utah. They asked (begged) him to accompany them to Istanbul for the Habitat II conference.

...

What occurred after that was amazing.

He registered for the three-week conference as a representative of BYU's David M. Kennedy International Center and the Law School. He prepared a paper to present at a SEMINAR for NGOs. Among the things he would teach were these lines: "Great care is warranted in crafting the precise language incorporated into a formal conference declaration, as it has significant impact upon domestic policy."

When he checked in at the conference, Richard was shocked to find that he had been assigned to present his paper on the SECOND DAY, in the LARGEST ROOM, with a FULL CADRE of translators. He explained, "There were all kinds of rooms in which you could give your presentation. Some of them were about the size of a closet. There were very few large rooms that would seat several hundred people with full panels of interpreters.

...

At the end of the first week, things did NOT look bright for the NGOs in favor of the traditional family. The opponents of families were powerful and were still getting the upper hand.

Then a series of events began unfolding.

For the first time EVER, the UN implemented a plan to choose 10 NGO voices to address the ACTUAL DELEGATES WHO WERE DRAFTING THE FINAL HABITAT DOCUMENT. The process whereby the 10 NGO voices would be chosen was as follows: Nominees from among the NGOs would be invited to "try out" for the opportunity of being selected as one of the lucky 10. Those lucky 10 speakers would be privileged to present their viewpoint to the men and women (Habitat delegates) who were drafting the final document. It was a rare and unheard of opportunity for NGOs.

...

The next morning, at the session where Wilkins was to speak, the committee chair announced that a "few" additional presenters had been added to the roster..eight representatives from the women's caucus, to be exact. The chair continued to announce that only SIX minutes per speaker would be allowed and that it was likely they would NOT be able to hear from everybody. Wilkins noted that he was scheduled to speak second-to-last, right AFTER the eight additional presentations. Then he again saw their game plan...if they couldn't ELIMINATE him, they would SQUEEZE him out.

Predictably, the eight speakers took much longer than their allotted six minutes. They repeatedly discussed their positions: Here are some examples of what they advocate:

• The worlds' housing problems would disappear if...alternative forms of sexual partnerships were recognized (give legal protection to same sex marriages, allow homosexuals to marry)
• Give women ready access to pregnancy termination (world-wide abortion on demand)
•  Religion is an obstacle to progress and must be eliminated.
• Increase funding for adolescent sexual reproductive services in the schools, including teaching technical sexual know-how and providing them with prophylactics. (parent permission is unnecessary as they have no say in the matter)
• Provide 18-20 hours a day of government-sponsored day care.
• Take all 'necessary steps' to ensure that every woman is "fully employed" outside the home.

Members of the Women's Caucus believe their platform is the solution to our modern problems.

Then the floor was given to Bella Abzug, founder of the Women's Caucus, who spent 10 minutes extolling the virtues of the Women's Caucus. (Note: Hillary Clinton is a member of this caucus)

Wilkins reported, "I sat back in my chair, astounded at the breadth of the Women's Caucus' total DOMINATION".

The language used by these female presenters had become so vile that an Algerian delegate formally protested: "Mr. Chairman, we were to hear a variety of views from NGOs this morning, but this has been turned into a seminar on radical lesbian feminism. I want to know if other views are being foreclosed." Then the Holy See (from the Vatican) seconded the motion, which resulted in a flood of objections and charges of corruption.

Trying to assure the delegates that he was not corrupt, the chairman invited Wilkins to deliver a severely abbreviated version of his speech--no more than FOUR minutes.

As Wilkins walked to the podium, he was loudly hissed.

Having so little time, he fell back upon the Proclamation to the World on the family. Later, as he retold this experience Wilkins admitted that at the time the Proclamation had first come out, he was serving as a Bishop. He read it and thought, "Yes, well, we all know that." Back then he thought little of it, but THAT day in Istanbul, standing before influential representatives from across the world, he knew without a doubt it was an inspired document...one prepared well in advance by Prophets of God, for just such a time as this.

In his speech he shared that document. It deeply touched hearts and set in motion an overwhelming change. He urged the delegates to do what they could to strengthen the family, rather than expend the vast majority of their energies creating SUBSTITUTE SOCIAL STRUCTURES. He closed his remarks by urging them to "be quite careful before they took any action that would undermine the central role of the family in their societies."

The reaction to the speech was remarkable. Many of the speakers who had preceded him at the podium hissed as he returned to his seat. He is quite certain he was spit upon, due to some damp spots on his jacket, but MOST of the delegates in the audience gave him a STANDING OVATION. The Ambassador from Saudi Arabia embraced him warmly and asked, "Where have you been?" Several delegates from developing nations expressed their thanks and their surprise that an American law professor would defend such a traditional position on the family. Based on what they had previously heard, they had come to believe that Americans are anti-family.

Following Richard's speech, many countries present demanded radical changes to the Habitat draft. In their written demands, they used such statements as "The family is the nucleus of society...the family starts with a man and a woman bonded according to social and religious norms".

Of course, not all hearts softened. One prominent Women's Caucus leader said that Wilkins was "only a man" and could "never understand", and she even went so far as to say that people like Wilkins "hardly deserve to live."

Wilkins said, "Bella Abzug insisted that there was a massive, well- organized, well-funded organization behind me. All I had was a plane ticket purchased by the BYU Law School, a small travel advance, and my MasterCard" and the Proclamation to the World on the Family.

He added, "What had looked, from the beginning, like another total victory for the feminist agenda was, instead, almost a total defeat. " The Habitat draft DID change. When the document was rewritten, it reaffirmed the centrality of the family, rejected homosexual unions, and retreated significantly from former worldwide commitments to abortion. 28 explicit references to abortion were deleted. But perhaps the greatest coup was the final draft's definition of marriage, recognizing that marriage involves spouses who are husband and wife.

That doesn't seem "lame" to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you account for its impact on the meeting in Istanbul, as described by Bro. Wilkins (see links posted here)?

I think the Proclamation is anything but lame.  It has been a frequent point of reference for the members of the Church for the last twenty years, and has even had significant international influence.  See, e.g. here (emphases added):

That doesn't seem "lame" to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like faith promoting rumor.  Do we really think that people spat upon him?  That it was said that he doesn't deserve to live? 

But it appears there was no miracle in any of this.  Apparently, according to this ridiculous sounding summary the opposing position was going to solve the housing problem throughout the world (I doubt anyone proposed that simple step as the solution but, you know, exaggerated faith promoting rumor works better with exaggeration), but somehow his little 4 minute reading of a pretty simple document put a stop to such a goal.  That sounds like it caused more problems throughout the world then anything--if this summary is to believed.  And, as we know, his speech didn't solve any problems in the world--the housing crises exists, "traditional families" are under attack, and we see all sorts of other problems. 

I mean this cute faith promoting rumor of a story makes sense if the end result was something that actually fixed things.  The document seemed to support traditional societies, if we grant the exaggerated retelling carries some truth.  Did he really think that the conference was going to end the view of traditional family if he didn't get up at the end and read the document?  That would be hilarious. 

The claim that the feminist agenda (women should have rights) was defeated is laughable of course. IT exists.  Women should have rights in the world.

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I admit I'm not seeing the contradiction in it that you are.  The revelatory process, explained by Oaks, was not to suggest the wording of the document was not already written by another as they made some adjustments here or there.  They considered what was written, apparently, and decided whether the wording, as it was, worked or not.  They made changes if they thought it didn't work or needed adjusting.  The most interesting part of Oaks' explanation was the learning line upon line.  Hinckley and Oaks basically presented it as containing the already decided teachings that had been in the Church for many years before.  It doesn't seem like they learned anything to me, so his claim is an odd one there. 

So a student submitting his doctorial thesis who makes changes to an already existing thesis written by some previous doctorial student and making changes he/she doesn't think work or others words that needed adjusting and then presents that work as his/her own would be considered a plagiarist.  Elder Oaks has stated that the Proclamation was the result of a revelatory process, line upon line, not a reworking of someone else's already completed work of which the apostles merely added some editorial efforts to.  To suggest this would be equivalent to accusing the apostles of plagiarism.

 

Edit to add: I posted this before reading Smac's post above.  I think we can now lay that claim of Wilkin's having written the proclamation to rest as just another church critic's attempt to undermine the church.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

So a student submitting his doctorial thesis who makes changes to an already existing thesis written by some previous doctorial student and making changes he/she doesn't think work or others words that needed adjusting and then presents that work as his/her own would be considered a plagiarist.  Elder Oaks has stated that the Proclamation was the result of a revelatory process, line upon line, not a reworking of someone else's already completed work of which the apostles merely added some editorial efforts to.  To suggest this would be equivalent to accusing the apostles of plagiarism.

You seem to know exactly how this "revelatory process" works since you claim to know how it doesn't work. Please enlighten us. Explain the exact "revelatory process".

How do you know that there wasn't a primary author who put all the info on the page to then have it discussed and edited by the decision makers? Your logic regarding the plagiarism claim seems sophomoric and doesn't seem to recognize how groups work together. Perhaps it would be helpful to take a step back and recognize that your logic is based on your own assumptions and interpretations of events.

I don't know if this particular guy was the primary author. It doesn't really matter to me. Someone had to be yet no individual receives credit. Why? Because the document is accepted and promulgated by the 1st Presidency and Q12. By signing their names they take ownership of the process, whether it was written by this guy, someone else at Kirton McConkie, or equally between each member of the Q15.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like faith promoting rumor. 

I also provided two links to Bro. Wilkins reporting the events in Istanbul.  Not very rumorish, those.  He was, after all, a percipient witness of those events.

Quote

Do we really think that people spat upon him?  That it was said that he doesn't deserve to live? 

As to those details, I'll defer judgment.  Bro. Wilkins co-authored a book on his experiences in Istanbul.  I am more interested in the substantive effect the Proclamation had on the proceedings in Istanbul, as reported by Bro. Wilkins.

Quote

But it appears there was no miracle in any of this.  Apparently, according to this ridiculous sounding summary the opposing position was going to solve the housing problem throughout the world (I doubt anyone proposed that simple step as the solution but, you know, exaggerated faith promoting rumor works better with exaggeration), but somehow his little 4 minute reading of a pretty simple document put a stop to such a goal.  That sounds like it caused more problems throughout the world then anything--if this summary is to believed.  And, as we know, his speech didn't solve any problems in the world--the housing crises exists, "traditional families" are under attack, and we see all sorts of other problems. 

I mean this cute faith promoting rumor of a story makes sense if the end result was something that actually fixed things.  The document seemed to support traditional societies, if we grant the exaggerated retelling carries some truth.  Did he really think that the conference was going to end the view of traditional family if he didn't get up at the end and read the document?  That would be hilarious. 

I think we change the world bit by bit.  In increments.  Gradually.

Quote

The claim that the feminist agenda (women should have rights) was defeated is laughable of course. IT exists.  Women should have rights in the world.

I think the "agenda" in question was the one that "marginalized parents, ignored the family, denigrated cultural and religious values, and enshrined reproductive and sexual health" (that last bit seems to be a reference to abortion on demand).

In any event, I think the book is likely a much better source of information about Bro. Wilkinson's experience in Istanbul than a homespun family newsletter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edit to Add: More information on the Istanbul incident here: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=clarkmemorandum (Spring 1997 Clark Memorandum).  It looks like the homespun newsletter is pretty accurate after all.

Edited October 5, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here is what Richard Wilkins had to say about the Proclamation (from a speech he gave at BYU in 1999) (emphases added):

So here Bro. Wilkins describes his "reaction" to the Proclamation, which would be rather odd if he had written it.

Here Bro. Wilkins describes his initially lukewarm perception of the Proclamation ("it was just a nice statement . . . I didn't expect that it would do much").  This would be an odd response to the document from its purported "original / primary author.

Here Bro. Wilkins testifies that the Proclamation "is indeed the word of God to this generation."  'Nuff said.

Here are a few more remarks from Bro. Wilkins about the Proclamation (in a 2005 article) (emphases added):

Here Bro. Wilkins twice attributes the Proclamation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  And less than a year after it was announced, his wife "slipped a copy" of it into his suitcase as he went abroad, telling him that he "may find it helpful."  This is a mighty strange course of conduct for Sis. Wilkins.  Why would she give Bro. Wilkins a copy of a document of which he was "original / primary author?"

And this account about Bro. Wilkins (from an online newsletter, and describing/summarizing Bro. Wilkins' remarks about his 1996 trip to Istanbul described above) (emphases added):

Again, very strange remarks from the purported "original / primary author" of the Proclamation.

So as between the remarks by Elder Oaks (and, for that matter, by Bro. Wilkins) on the one said and, on the other, the unsubstantiated and axe-grinding say-so of an anonymous online critic of the LDS Church, I think I'll go with the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nice finds, Smac.  I am going to suggest we put them on FM if we haven't already.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nice finds, Smac.  I am going to suggest we put them on FM if we haven't already.

Cool!  Don't forget this one: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=clarkmemorandum 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

I wish critics/skeptics/the disaffected/pick-your-adjective would pick a horse and ride it. "Richard Wilkins wrote the Proclamation," "Kirton McConkie wrote the Proclamation" (the proponent of that theory misidentified the firm to me as "Kirtland McConkie" [sic]).  It seems, though, that any alternative explanation will do, as long as it's not the one proffered by Elder Oaks.  Now that I think about it, though, I guess that does make sense: Many people who accord great weight to Elder Oaks's explanation of how the Proclamation came to be also are likely to accord great weight to the Proclamation itself, and since the Proclamation is so terribly, tragically Un-PC, well, such a state of affairs simply won't do.  

[Button Gwinnett]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to know exactly how this "revelatory process" works since you claim to know how it doesn't work. Please enlighten us. Explain the exact "revelatory process".

How do you know that there wasn't a primary author who put all the info on the page to then have it discussed and edited by the decision makers? Your logic regarding the plagiarism claim seems sophomoric and doesn't seem to recognize how groups work together. Perhaps it would be helpful to take a step back and recognize that your logic is based on your own assumptions and interpretations of events.

I don't know if this particular guy was the primary author. It doesn't really matter to me. Someone had to be yet no individual receives credit. Why? Because the document is accepted and promulgated by the 1st Presidency and Q12. By signing their names they take ownership of the process, whether it was written by this guy, someone else at Kirton McConkie, or equally between each member of the Q15.

The assertion was the this Wilkin's guy wrote the proclamation, handed it to the 12 apostles who made some correlation type editorial additions and deletions to this already existing completed proclamation and then claimed it as their own work. How is that not a charge of plagiarism?