Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Scrutinizing general conference


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think E. Oaks works from the assumption that almost all of what the Q12/FP does is revelation of some sort?  Don't they believe that they are so in tune that most or a substantial portion of their thoughts are in harmony with God and so therefore "revelation?"  So, obviously a committee effort becomes "revelation" when the Q12/FP give their stamp of approval?  Likewise, the policy change regarding children of LGTBQ individuals was "revelation" because the Q12/FP approved of it?

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, llama said:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

Another fascinating definition of revelation. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

All good points.  I think any claim that runs counter to the available evidence should be taken with a grain of salt and a heavy dose of skepticism.   However, I don't think Bro. Cake has provided anything that runs counter to what Elder Oaks said happened.  So it's entirely plausible that both Elder Oaks and Bro. Cake's secret source are giving accurate insights into the process that brought us the proclamation.  It seems very reasonable that the church would consult with its best legal minds when preparing and researching for the proclamation.  That it took a year to complete seems to lend credence to the possibility. 

Im entirely open to the possibility that both have provided credible information as long as Elder Oaks credibility isn't impugned. 

Elder Oaks, a percipient witness of the year-long process that culminated in the Proclamation, attributes the Proclamation to revelatory guidance from God.  Johnnie Cake and his anonymous buddy point to triple hearsay attributed to a dead Mormon, and then use that to assert that the Proclamation is anything but revelation.  

Quoth the purported anonymous purveyor of third-hand gossip (emphases added):

Quote

For the zillionth time, this isn't about whether Wilkins, specifically, or whoever else, authored the proclamation. It's about the fact that god didn't author it. Some group of men did. This is about the definition of the word "revelation" and how that definition keeps changing to accommodate/respond to the utter lack of revelation according to previously understood and accepted definitions of the word.  

So yes, Elder Oaks' credibility and honesty is being impugned.  By Johnnie and his purported buddy, a pair of anonymous gossipmongers who have set themselves up as voices alternative and superior to that of a percipient witness, who is also an apostle of Jesus Christ, and a good and decent man.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, llama said:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

I could be wrong but it was my understanding that a unanimous decision of all 15 is not a requirement. In fact when the priesthood ban was lifted President Kimball waited until Elder Mark E. Peterson, an avid opponent of lifting the ban, was out of the country.   

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, llama said:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

Is that like 30 million Catholics can't be wrong? Unanimity is no guarantee of truth and no guarantee of revelation.  Joseph Smith received many revelations while half the apostles were calling him a fallen prophet.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation, issued nearly quarter century ago and now translated into scores of languages, is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family."

What is it about the statement that you don't like?  Do you not believe that it is the Lord's reemphasis of gospel truths?  Do you not believe that holding the the principles of the Proclamation can sustain a family through the current challenges that that institution is facing?

I don’t believe that it is the “Lord’s reemphasis” nor does the document make such a claim - in fact, it states the opposite for itself.  It is a reemphasis by the 15 men who claimed the words for themselves including signing the document that uses the preposition “we” repeatedly.  And, when the Prophet and President presented the Proclamation to the sisters of the church, he didn’t identify it as the Lord’s reemphasis, he presented it as the 15 proclaiming, warning, and forewarning.

If it was the Lord’s reemphasis, I think they would have mentioned it at the time or, more importantly, worded it as such. Instead, with just five of the authors still sitting in general conference, we have attempts to re-cast it as something that it wasn’t.  And a desire to make it a litmus test of conversion. 

As for whether it can sustain a family through current challenges?  Yes... if your particular family fits the right mold and if your gender and orientation match up with what the document demands. Otherwise, it can just create pain. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Oaks, a percipient witness of the year-long process that culminated in the Proclamation, attributes the Proclamation to revelatory guidance from God.  Johnnie Cake and his anonymous buddy point to triple hearsay attributed to a dead Mormon, and then use that to assert that the Proclamation is anything but revelation.  

Quoth the purported anonymous purveyor of third-hand gossip (emphases added):

So yes, Elder Oaks' credibility and honesty is being impugned.  By Johnnie and his purported buddy, a pair of anonymous gossipmongers who have set themselves up as voices alternative and superior to that of a percipient witness, who is also an apostle of Jesus Christ, and a good and decent man.

Thanks,

-Smac

I remind you that early in this thread I defended Elder Oaks against what I thought was an attack of his integrity and what I considered was a charge of plagiarism.  I'm very skeptical of the anonymous source too but willing be open to the possibility that the witness is telling the truth as he saw it.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I remind you that early in this thread I defended Elder Oaks against what I thought was an attack of his integrity and what I considered was a charge of plagiarism.  I'm very skeptical of the anonymous source too but willing be open to the possibility that the witness is telling the truth as he saw it.  

Anonymous Johnnie's purported anonymous buddy isn't claiming to be a percipient witness, so the only thing is is "telling" is gossip.  He is claiming to have heard a dead Mormon say something once.  How this transmutes into competent, probative, credible evidence from which we can conclude that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}" is beyond me.

If I were to tell you that I have an anonymous friend who told me that he heard from a retired Secret Service officer that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy, there is no way I could credibly be said to be "telling the truth as I see it."  The only thing I would be telling is multiple hearsay.  Gossip.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, llama said:

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

unanimity= revelation

I think it would be more apt to say: "unanimity = important component of receiving revelation which is to be binding on the Church as a whole."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's simply not possible.  The witness isn't claiming to be a percipient witness.  He is claiming to have heard a dead Mormon say something once.  How this transmutes into competent, probative evidence from which we can conclude that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}" is beyond me.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's a claim made an an anonymous internet poster and "that" fact should be taken into account.  I'm not trying to make the claim any more credible than it is on its face.  Am I skeptical? Heck yes. Is his claim plausible? I think it could be. Would I interpret it just as he, a non believer interprets it? No. But I'm not prepared to be as closed minded as I'm sensing you are either, but then I tend to trust people and try to see good intentions in everyone, but also recognize that  two people can have the same facts and draw two entirely different conclusions. 

Edited by Button Gwinnett
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's simply not possible.  The witness isn't claiming to be a percipient witness.  He is claiming to have heard a dead Mormon say something once.  How this transmutes into competent, probative evidence from which we can conclude that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}" is beyond me.

Thanks,

-Smac

And to be fair he is claiming that he knew Bro Wilkins, worked with him and that Bro Wilkins was alive when he made the comment, not dead.

Edited by Button Gwinnett
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

It's a claim made an an anonymous internet poster and "that" fact should be taken into account.  I'm not trying to make the claim any more credible than it is on its face.  Am I skeptical? Heck yes. Is his claim plausible? I think it could be.

I think the most problematic part is the anonymous person's assertion that his triple hearsay quote from a dead Mormon somehow constitutes evidence that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}."  There is no competent, probative evidence for this claim.  None.

3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Would I interpret it just as he, a non believer interprets it? No. But I'm not prepared to be as closed minded as I'm sensing you are either,

I wouldn't have lasted on this board for 13 years if I was "closed minded."

Here I am, speaking with critics and evaluating their arguments.  I am not dismissing them out-of-hand.  I am evaluating evidence and arguments/conclusions based thereon.  

I feel I am quite "open-minded," at least in the way that Aristotle put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it," together with a dash of G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

but then I tend to trust people and try to see good intentions in everyone,

So do I.  But the purveying of gossipy multiple hearsay intended to rebut percipient first-hand testimony from an apostle is, by any measure, a bit much.  See the above Chesterton quote.

3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

but also recognize that  two people can have the same facts and draw two entirely different conclusions. 

That's my point.  Anonymous Johnnie and his purported anonymous buddy are not dealing with "facts," but with hearsay.  Gossip.

Elder Oaks, on the other hand, is a percipient witness.  He is dealing with "facts" (unless we have grounds to impeach his testimony, but that doesn't seem to be coming any time soon).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I could be wrong but it was my understanding that a unanimous decision of all 15 is not a requirement. In fact when the priesthood ban was lifted President Kimball waited until Elder Mark E. Peterson, an avid opponent of lifting the ban, was out of the country.   

This is the first I’ve heard that President Kimball purposely waited until Elder Petersen was out of the country. 

Which leaves me to wonder: Do you know that for a fact, or are you engaging in post hoc supposition?

I have heard repeatedly that the proposal was presented to the two apostles who weren’t present — Elder Petersen, who was out of the country on Church business, and Elder Stapley, who was in a hospital bed — and each man enthusiastically endorsed it, this before the revelation was ever published to the world. 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Elder Petersen even hinted subsequently that he felt the rest of the council had railroaded through the lifting of the ban without consulting him or allowing him to have his say?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

All good points.  I think any claim that runs counter to the available evidence should be taken with a grain of salt and a heavy dose of skepticism.   However, I don't think Bro. Cake has provided anything that runs counter to what Elder Oaks said happened.  So it's entirely plausible that both Elder Oaks and Bro. Cake's secret source are giving accurate insights into the process that brought us the proclamation.  It seems very reasonable that the church would consult with its best legal minds when preparing and researching for the proclamation.  That it took a year to complete seems to lend credence to the possibility. 

Im entirely open to the possibility that both have provided credible information as long as Elder Oaks credibility isn't impugned. 

I think it runs counter to what Brother Wilkins has portrayed though.  His reputation is, imo, as important to consider as Elder Oaks'.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

And to be fair he is claiming that he knew Bro Wilkins, worked with him and that Bro Wilkins was alive when he made the comment, not dead.

Bro. Wilkins is dead now, and hence not available to address the statements being attributed to him by a so-called "friend" who chooses to remain anonymous and purvey such remarks through a critic of Bro. Wilkins' faith, and for the intended purpose of pitting Bro. Wilkins' remarks against those of Elder Oaks.  The purported and anonymous "friend" has been very specific on that point.

And in any event, what is being claimed is worthless anyhow.  It's anonymous hearsay.  That's all.  It has essentially no probative value.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I could be wrong but it was my understanding that a unanimous decision of all 15 is not a requirement. In fact when the priesthood ban was lifted President Kimball waited until Elder Mark E. Peterson, an avid opponent of lifting the ban, was out of the country.   

Hmmm.  By that logic, shouldn't President Kimball have waited until Elder McConkie also was out of the country?

Quote

 

"We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the Second Coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.

"We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Source: Elder Bruce R. McConkie (August 18, 1978), "All Are Alike Unto God," BYU Speeches of the Year, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, accessed on line at the following address on October 9, 2017:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/

 

And although two of the Twelve, Elder Delbert L. Stapley and Elder Mark E. Petersen, were absent when the revelation was received and when a meeting was held later to plan how it would be announced, their assent was obtained later:

Quote

"Two of the Twelve had not attended either meeting. Elder Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was seriously ill in the LDS Hospital. Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, 'I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking that the decision itself.  On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.'  [Footnote omitted.]  All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley.  He responded, 'I'll stay with the Brethren on this.'  Thus, support from the Twelve was unanimous.  [Footnote omitted.]"

Source: Edward L. Kimball (2008), "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies, Vol. 47, Iss. 2, Pp. 60-61, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, accessed on line at the following address (available for download; article copy in poster's possession as of this date) on October 9, 2017:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood

 

 

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that like 30 million Catholics can't be wrong? Unanimity is no guarantee of truth and no guarantee of revelation.  Joseph Smith received many revelations while half the apostles were calling him a fallen prophet.

Joseph Smith’s revelatory process might have been different from the one currently used. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the most problematic part is the anonymous person's assertion that his triple hearsay quote from a dead Mormon somehow constitutes evidence that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}."  There is no competent, probative evidence for this claim.  None.

I wouldn't have lasted on this board for 13 years if I was "closed minded."

Here I am, speaking with critics and evaluating their arguments.  I am not dismissing them out-of-hand.  I am evaluating evidence and arguments/conclusions based thereon.  

I feel I am quite "open-minded," at least in the way that Aristotle put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it," together with a dash of G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

So do I.  But the purveying of gossipy multiple hearsay intended to rebut percipient first-hand testimony from an apostle is, by any measure, a bit much.  See the above Chesterton quote.

That's my point.  Anonymous Johnnie and his purported anonymous buddy are not dealing with "facts," but with hearsay.  Gossip.

Elder Oaks, on the other hand, is a percipient witness.  He is dealing with "facts" (unless we have grounds to impeach his testimony, but that doesn't seem to be coming any time soon).

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks and I appreciate your explanation, I just don't see the two assertions as mutually exclusive or having to cancel each other out.  But clearly nor should anyone give them equal weight.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the first I’ve heard that President Kimball purposely waited until Elder Peterson was out of the country. 

Which leaves me to wonder: Do you know that for a fact, or are you engaging in post hoc supposition?

I have heard repeatedly that the proposal was presented to the two apostles who weren’t present — Elder Peterson, who was out of the country on Church business, and Elder Stapley, who was in a hospital bed, and each man enthusiastically endorsed it, this before the revelation was ever published to the world. 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Elder Peterson even hinted subsequently that he felt the rest of the council had railroaded through the lifting of the ban without consulting him or allowing him to have his say?

I know for fact that Elder Peterson was out of the country, but I do not know for fact that president Kimball planned it this way, it could have been a fortunate coincidence.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the First I’ve heard that President Kimball purposely waited until Elder Peterson was out of the country. 

Which leaves me to wonder: Do you know that fits fact, or are you engaging in post hoc supposition?

I think the latter.

From Edward Kimball's excellent article, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood":

Quote

On Thursday, June 1, Spencer left home early, as usual, so engrossed that he left his briefcase behind and had to send back for it.

...

The day proved rather more significant than this entry suggests. On this first Thursday of the month, the First Presidency, Twelve, and Seventies met in their regularly scheduled monthly temple meeting at 9:00 a.m., fasting.  There they bore testimony, partook of the sacrament, and participated  in a prayer circle.152 The meeting lasted the usual three and a half hours and was not notably different from other such meetings until the conclusion, when President Kimball asked the Twelve to remain. Two had already left the room to change from their temple clothing in preparation for the regular business meeting of the First Presidency and the Twelve that normally followed. Someone called them back. Elder Delbert L. Stapley lay ill in the hospital, and Elder Mark E. Petersen was in South America on assignment. Ten of the Twelve were present.

As was later recalled, President Kimball said:

Quote

Brethren, I have canceled lunch for today. Would you be willing to remain in the temple with us? I would like you to continue to fast with me. I have been going to the temple almost daily for many weeks now,
sometimes for hours, entreating the Lord for a clear answer. I have not been determined in advance what the answer should be. And I will be satisfied with a simple Yes or No, but I want to know. Whatever the
Lord’s decision is, I will defend it to the limits of my strength, even to death.

 

This is the meeting which culminated in the 1978 revelation (it makes for some fascinating reading).  No indication here, I think, that Pres. Kimball had connived to keep Elder Petersen from the proceedings.

Elder Petersen was contacted about this one week later, on June 8.  His response . . . 

Quote

Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.”

So, yeah.  Not much of a story.

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have heard repeatedly that the proposal was presented to the two apostles who weren’t present — Elder Peterson, who was out of the country on Church business, and Elder Stapley, who was in a hospital bed, and each man enthusiastically endorsed it, this before the revelation was published to the world. 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Elder Peterson even hinted subsequently that he felt the rest of the council had railroaded through the lifting of the ban without consulting him?

Oh, hush.  Don't harsh the narrative, brah!

;)

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it runs counter to what Brother Wilkins has portrayed though.  His reputation is, imo, as important to consider as Elder Oaks'.

Ironically, I'm the one who posted some of Wilkins comments, I'm just willing to be be open to the possibility that there is truth on both sides

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I know for fact that Elder Peterson was out of the country, but I do not know for fact that president Kimball planned it this way, it could have been a fortunate coincidence.

If, indeed, the absence of Elders Petersen and Stapley, respectively, was a "fortunate coincidence," why bother obtaining their assent at all?  Why not simply say, "Well, we got a majority vote, and that's all we need, even if Elder Petersen (or anyone else) disagrees"?  And if, indeed, President Kimball wanted to get any brethren whom he thought might oppose lifting the ban out of the way, why not wait until Elder McConkie, also was conveniently "on assignment" in some far-flung corner of the globe?

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...