Jump to content

Johnnie Cake

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Johnnie Cake

  1. 1 minute ago, smac97 said:

    Putting aside the repellant amount of sheer spitefulness and contempt that is so obvious is this statement, I would like to clear one thing up...

    In your view, the affirmative act of resigning one's membership in the Church is, in your view, equivalent to the passive event of being "purged from the church?"  



    And here I thought I was making a positive comment.  Geez. My comment was alluding to the possibility that the recent slowing of church growth was possibly being artificially impacted by a one time resignation surge...which like the missionary surge, has come and gone and that now church grown can resume its projected growth trends unencumbered by this one time mass resignations event.  How exactly could this be taken as a repellant, spiteful contemptuous comment smac?  Dude,  give me a break and cut me some slack ok

  2. Just now, hope_for_things said:

    But this is assuming that the policy didn't impact active tithing paying members in a negative way, and I think it did that as well.  I think where you'll see people resigning from the church, you will also see others impacted who respond differently.  

    For the vast majority of active members, the November policy was like water on the back of a duck...

  3. On the bright side...maybe those 60,000 resignations were kind of like the missionary surge.  They had an immediate impact on artificially suppressing church growth numbers and now that they've all been purged from the church the church will once again show a substantial uptick in membership growth numbers. So maybe this is a positive...I guess we'll find out come April..

  4. 1 hour ago, cinepro said:

    On a recent interview on RadioWest, historian Greg Prince discusses his upcoming book on the history of LDS Church policies on homosexuality, Prince shares the following anecdotal data:



    Those numbers, if true, are shocking.  I've long suspected that anyone who is "active" enough to pro-actively resign their membership was probably active to some degree in their Church attendance.  If that 60,000 number is true, that's 5 or 6 Stakes worth of members!




    The upside is that those 60,000 who resigned probably weren't the full tithing, church attending types, so in that sense did it really hurt the churches bottom line? But that's just conjecture on my part and I can't back that up with any stats to support it.  Maybe it really did hurt the church to get rid of all of its inactive, non tithe paying,  members in name only types.

  5. Ironic that this has come out. I had lunch with Mike Norton several years ago. I found him to be friendly, personable yet very focused in his conclusions regarding the church.  As someone this board has felt to also call a critic, I personally disapprove of virtually everything Norton has done in using his disguises and secret cameras to circumvent church security in order to expose the temple endowment to the world. My feeling is he went way too far and lost the respect of many whom he might have other wise found as sympathetic.


  6. 28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

    I have a relative who is unable to have children.  Low sperm count, or at least he claims.  I've explained to him that his inability to have children can't be genetic but instead it must be something he is choosing to do, because there is no genetic advantage to his being unable to have children.  Heck, if everyone was unable to have kids, the entire human race would die out in one generation, so it obviously can't be biological. 

    It's just logical.

    Elder oaks married a post menopause woman. Surely marriage can be for companionship too, right? 

  7. My source would like to respond to a few misunderstandings.
    bluebell wrote:But you understand why his words don't mean much to those who don't know him, right? It's too bad he doesn't want to stand behind his words, but I can understand why he wants to remain anonymous given his accusations against Prof. Wilkins integrity.

    I take exception with this comment. I have not said anything derogatory about Dr. Wilkins at all. In fact, JonnieCake can attest to the fact that I made a point of filtering my public remarks from my private remarks to him, (yes I so attest) as I specifically didn't want to come across this way. So there is no misunderstanding, I am not "accusing" Wilkins of anything, certainly not anything that should be regarded in a negative way. Bro Wilkins was a good man. He had a great family who he loved dearly and was devoted to. In his career he was a brilliant scholar. I had and have nothing but respect and admiration for him. I thought the work he was doing overseas was awesome. His work went a long way to heal US relationships with the Islamic world, frankly. In the midst of a lot of chaos generated by both the right and left ends of the political spectrum he was a real force for good over there.

    I want to make it clear that I'm also not expressing disagreement with the proclamation. The TBM reaction over at MDD is that their holy writ is being trampled on by the anti-Mormon. No. As users around here can attest to, I'm not exactly a rainbow-flag-waiving liberal. Though disaffected from the church, there really isn't anything in the proclamation I find myself in strong disagreement with. I've never taken the time to really sit down and think about it with that kind of critical eye. I'm sure if I did I could find a few things to argue with, but I don't really care. None of the issues pertaining to the proclamation (LGBT, SSM, feminism, etc.) were part of my disaffection from the church. Upon becoming disaffected from the church my attitudes have softened/changed on some of these issues, but that was an effect rather than a cause. My issues with the church really just boil down to honesty and authority. Among the essay topics, Race/Priesthood is by far the most important one IMO.

    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.  
    Benjamin McGuire wrote:It is awfully hard for me to reconcile my view of the Proclamation with the statement made by wterdog. The document saw its early motivations in a legal need. But its contents were a collage of earlier statements, brought together so that it wasn't just a new statement trying to establish a doctrine, but rather served as a visible witness to the idea that the things in the statement represented a history of belief (that, and the text was also correlated ....). And when I read the Proclamation with an awareness of those earlier sources, it screams committee ....

    I think we agree. Committee is what I'm claiming. (said it several times, even describing it as a modern-day council of nicea at one point) I have not said Wilkins was the sole author. I believe him to have been the primary author, but as stated, that can mean a lot of different things in terms of the mechanics of the process and specific language. Wilkins was the idea guy. He was the principle driving force behind all of these efforts to alter state-level constitutions to prevent SSM. He was directly involved in the amendment efforts in HI that passed in 98. He was a constitutional lawyer, this was his thing. Long before the proclamation.
  8. On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 12:16 PM, Skylla said:

    Who is your favorite moderator?  Keep in mind my finger is hovering over the ban button.


    Well the answer to the question of my favorite Mod is an easy one for me.  Skylla.   of course is my favorite Moderator, you are as far as I know, the only Mod who hasn't taken punitive action against me.  I'm sure that on some level my admission of you being my Fav, will only come back to bite me and hurt you at your Mod social hours each Friday evening. PS: Please restore me to full membership status, I'm a good boy and deserving of your intersession on my behalf.

  9. 30 minutes ago, juliann said:

    You are being unnecessarily cagey.  What misinformation did you give? You still claim he was a first hand source. So is what you claim was said inaccurate?

    No caginess intended.    My source saw my post and asked that I take a step back from my statement,  he didn't want anything over stated. He wanted me to make it clear that he was not a first hand witness that Wilkins authored the first drafts of the proclamation. He is only repeating what he heard Wilkins tell him in a personal one on one conversation.  In that conversation Wilkins told my source that he wrote the PoF, my source wanted to make it clear that he is only sharing what Wilkins told him in that conversation. nothing more.  He did not watch or see Wilkins write the PoF and in that sense my source in not a witness of Wilkins actually writing the PoF. He is only a witness of hearing Wilkins tell my source that he was the author.

  10. 8 minutes ago, juliann said:

    But everything else you say should be taken as unmitigated  truth*, correct? Just out of curiosity, how many "hands" has this true story now gone through? First, second, third....? 

    From Wilkin's mouth to my source's ear to me.  Keep in mind that my source knew Wilkins personally and worked with him. 


    * not at all Juliann, I would be stunned if you took anything I ever said as true, your bias' would prevent you from taking anything I said as true because it would not support your beliefs.

  11. My source has contacted me and asked that I correct what I have attributed to Wilkins. In my statement I stated that My source was a first hand witness that Wilkins authored the initial draft of the proclamation. This was not what my source is asserting. He asked that I correct the record. Please refer to his actual statement for an accurate statement of what exactly he is asserting. Thanks I want to make sure I only report the truth. 


    This is what he is claiming:

    My Question to him: Are you saying that you had a one on one conversation with him (Wilkins) where in he personally told you that he wrote the Proclamation on the Family

    His Answer: Yes

  12. 19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    I think you have a skewed and unnecessarily hostile perspective on what "Elder Oaks would like us to believe."



    And when the Wilkins family release the rough drafts of the proclamation in Wilkins handwriting then what...you’ll apologize?  That’ll be the day

  13. 9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    Well, not really.  Johnnie Cake is acting like he's the second coming of Woodward/Bernstein, and that he has some sort of "Deep Throat" operative feeding him super secret information.

    And yet . . . nothing of what Johnnie Cake is proposing is, as I see it, shocking or disturbing. 

    Leaders in the Church seeking revelation through faith and discussion and study and councils?

    Leaders in the Church formulating a statement through faith, study, prayer, and collaborative effort?

    Leaders in the Church using various written materials on Subject A as a starting point for a year-long collaborative effort to formulate a clear and concise statement about Subject A?  

    Leaders in the Church seeking approval/ratification of a particular proposal or course of conduct from the person or quorum with the appropriate level of stewardship?

    These things seem . . . mundane.  Ordinary.  Commonplace.  Standard Operating Procedure.  Modus Operandi.  Pick your metaphor.

    Proclamation-on-the-Family-gate, this ain't.



    Let’s then at least stick to the facts. The proclamation is evolving before our very eyes and being recast from proclamation to revelation. From a man made perhaps inspired document to a revelation the mind will and voice of God all mighty binding the church and assigning it to be relegated to the ash heap of societal hinterlands. . Elder Oaks has double downed and painted the church into a corner it may never be able to escape from

  14. 58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    No, he hasn't.

    I think God can and does use "a revelatory process" that includes people other than the Presiding High Priest, and that this process can still lead to revelation that is binding on the Church as a whole.

    Consider, for example, most of the New Testament.  None of it was written by Jesus Christ, and only a very small portion purports to have been authored by the Presiding High Priest (Peter).  The rest was written by apostles.  And yet we accept these writings as binding and authoritative.  "Ratification," as it were.

    Or consider the Articles of Faith.  Joseph Smith ostensibly wrote them, and yet...

    The Articles of Faith

    Sounds like the "revelatory process" can be varied and expansive in its form and procedure.  The key issue, I think, is the participation/involvement of the Presiding High Priest and the presiding quorums of the Church. 

    With that in mind, let's take a look at what Elder Oaks said (emphases added):

    So the Proclamation is the result of extensive thought, study, discussion, prayer, revisions and additions, and so on by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, with the published version being completed by the First Presidency ("{a}fter the {First} Presidency made further changes...").  The Presiding High Priest then presented the Proclamation to the Church.

    This process is profoundly within the parameters of how the LDS Church operates.  It is decidedly weird to to suggest that "revelation" is only valid if it comes exclusively through the Presiding High Priest, with no involvement whatsoever from anyone else, ever.  That is . . . an unusual and ascriptural and adoctrinal approach to this issue. 

    Plainly not true.  See above.

    Only to those who are not paying attention (or else who are so blinded by animosity, by a desire to find fault and accuse, that they are surprised by surprisingly mundane disclosures).

    Um, what?  What "committee" are you talking about?  No such group is referenced by Elder Oaks.  Instead, Elder Oaks described a revelatory process that involved "the Quorum of the Twelve" and "the First Presidency," who are the only two groups of people on the entire planet whom Latter-day Saints believe are "prophets, seers and revelators."

    Is it possible that others were involved in this "process" in preliminary or collateral ways?  Sure!  Could members of the Twelve had sought out the thoughts and perspectives of other people?  Their wives?  Trusted friends and family members?  Other men and women who are very learned as to the Restored Gospel?  If so, how is that a problem?  How are such efforts necessarily alternative to seeking and obtaining revelatory guidance from God? 


    So your "evidence" is triple hearsay ((1) you quoting (2) unidentified, anonymous other parties (3) quoting Bro. Wilkins).

    You'll understand our skepticism.

    Again, CFR.


    Yeah Your CFR is both expected and warranted. I’ve posted what I have on the matter and leave everyone to form their own conclusions. 

    I just think the process was much more man made than Elder Oaks would like us to believe 

  15. 2 hours ago, bluebell said:

    But you understand why his words don't mean much to those who don't know him, right?  It's too bad he doesn't want to stand behind his words, but I can understand why he wants to remain anonymous given his accusations against Prof. Wilkins integrity.

    Yes I do and were the circumstances reversed I would be in the lead pushing back on such an undocumented claim made by an anonymous internet poster.

    So given the circumstances, I don’t expect most to believe this witness. But I still felt it important enough to share it. 

  16. 1 hour ago, bluebell said:

    The Prof. Wilkins stuff has already been handled on this thread, using the words of Prof. Wilkins himself if i remember right.

    Other than that, I think the reason that no one has brought up this angle is because I don't think anyone is interpreting it the way that you are.  Having people other than 'prophets, seerers, and revelators' help in the process doesn't, in my mind anyway, change the way that revelation is defined.  If they did it without the apostles and prophets, then you might have a point but they didn't so....

    Who else was involved in the creation of Proclamation?  

    Yes but there is more...Prof Wilkins has told someone who he was close to, knew personally and worked with that he wrote the proclamation. It’s second hand, you don’t know this person,  I do. He wished to remain anonymous but I trust and believe him. 

  17. I’ll just leave this here. 

    I asked the witness Via private message:

    Over PM I asked:
    So on the Wilkins issue, are you saying that you had a one on one conversation with him where in he personally told you that he wrote the Proclamation or are you just connecting the dots together from his involvement in the legal briefs?

    His answer:

    Sigh. The answer is, yes.

    Yes, Wilkins told me, face to face. And also yes, I connected dots. It didn't come up in a braggy kind of way. And as far as his involvement directly with proclamation went, he was reluctant to say much and description I got was vague. I connected dots, based on similarity between proclamation and the stuff he said, how frequently he would talk about the proclamation, etc. I him if he was the author, or "one" of the authors, and he sheepishly admitted to it. He treated it in a kind of caught/secretive/winkwink way. I also had numerous conversations with other mutual relations, who knew him, including people he worked with on all the family/law stuff, that said that the same. That's where my understanding of his involvement really came into focus. Bear in mind, I'm TBM at the time, everybody I'm talking with is TBM, etc., and none of this was really a big deal. The reaction wasn't "oh, the 12 are total liars about this proclamation thing," it was "how cool is that, Dr/Bro Wilkins work is super inspired, the prophets have got him on speed dial like teancum, and I get to be a kind of witness/small part of that." 

    And nobody was calling the proclamation a "revelation" at that time either. Heck, back in 2010 when Packer said that in conference, it might have even been Wilkins that suggested he revise that wording! I have no idea. But they did revise it. Something happened there. But now that Wilkins is no longer around to say anything, we're back to talking about it like a revelation again. 

    I saw the comments by Smac. He makes some good points, bringing a compelling argument, but here's the thing. Nothing Wilkins said denies his involvement. He simply avoids any mention of it. Wilkins is a lawyer first of all. And I think too much is being read into brief descriptions. If you knew Wilkins what you'd understand is that this dude was a real soldier. If there was any "ruse" to maintain, he'd maintain it. He was a team player. And he wouldn't even see it as a "ruse." He wasn't out to hurt the church, he was kind of jack/NOM in a lot of ways - I could tell some funny stories there, and he'd criticize, but he was also a true believer and saw himself as being a special kind of elite soldier as part of the whole thing. From his genuine perspective, it was the Q15's proclamation, not his proclamation that they were plagiarizing. If that makes sense? He saw himself more of an accidental consultant. He had some ideas, the planets aligned, and bam this proclamation thing happened. And the whole experience made him feel really special and inspired. He wasn't intending to create this thing that the Q15 puts out for the whole church. But to him it felt like that's what happened. Finally, his mission in life has been found. THIS is what he was being prepared for. And that's why after the proclamation was put out, he took that football and freaking ran with it. Even though originally Wilkins was the idea man, Oaks probably was the strong driving force... seeing the value in what Wilkins was proposing and pushing it from within the Q15. Oaks caused it to become a much bigger deal than Wilkins had in mind originally. In that sense, Q15 took ownership of it.

    I don't know the detailed mechanics of exactly how it all happened. Like I said in my comment this doesn't matter though. That's not the point. The point is only that the proclamation isn't a revelation, it's a man made document. It involved a lot of people, both in and out of the church, members of Q15 and others with no "keys" at all. Wilkins was one of those guys. To my understanding the main guy. Others involved may contest that description. That's fine. I don't care. And I could be wrong. The only point I'm trying to make still stands - NOT REVELATION! 

    And regardless of the mechanics, Wilkins really believed in this whole war between good and evil, the gay zombie hoards out to destroy the church, etc. He would never get up and give a speech that in any way suggests he wrote the proclamation or do anything that in his legal mind might somehow undermine its legitimacy and effect. Need I point to countless very public and well known examples where church members have behaved in such a way? King Follet, 1890 Manifesto, Reed Smoot, Church denials of involvement in Prop8, etc. Still today, I challenge anybody to find the word "polygamy" or its politically correct counterpart "plural marriage," on the church's official marketing/missionary website about Joseph Smith - josephsmith.net.  

    Some of the timeline stuff Smac brings up is just wrong though, I'm very confident of that. Wilkins was involved in the gay marriage debate pre 95/96. His showing up at that conference in Turkey was not the beginning of his involvement in these matters. That was the beginning of his direct international involvement perhaps. But he was involved with things from the perspective of USA/Constitution before that. He was a preeminent constitutional lawyer/scholar. Even nationally he was very well regarded and would appear on a short list of credible experts, at BYU he was the man. He was the top guy at BYU law for this kind of stuff. Smac thinks nobody ever asked him his opinion about gay marriage from a constitutional perspective pre-proclamation? Wilkins had never even thought about these issues before, ROFL! Go dig up Wilkins speech in istanbul from 96, he was there as an expert speaking about this stuff! He was there giving recommendations, a call to arms, etc.

    And I have not accused Oaks of plagiarizing anything the way Smac says. All I've said is that Wilkins was the primary author, or "an" author, that proclamation was (largely) based on his original ideas/work. To what exact extent Wilkins wrote the official wording, I have no idea. Again, don't care, not the point, I'm only saying - NOT REVELATION. Men wrote it, period. God didn't write it. 

    BTW, doing some quick searches in google scholar there are some interesting things to find.  

    http://www.law.BYU.edu/wfpc/About_the_W ... s/Oslo.pdf

    http://www.law.BYU.edu/wfpc/UN%20Public ... ration.pdf


    https://www1.up.edu/garaventa/files/200 ... f#page=277

    http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?h ... &id=&page=

    http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?h ... &id=&page=

    http://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/view ... text=byusq

    And this is all a tiny sampling of stuff. Barely scratching the surface. If Wilkins wasn't involved in the proclamation, then he sure was plagiarizing it himself. He got the state of Qatar to even issue a "declaration" that looks like the same dern thing. The one paper also adds some info to the story Smac talks about. Wilkins describes himself as being very worried about gay marriage and such issues well before the proclamation. He mentions the bit about his wife putting a copy of the proclamation in his briefcase as he leaves town. From this description, it's clear he had seen the proclamation before. Smac makes it sound like that was the first time he had read the thing. To me it reads exactly the opposite. It sounds like the proclamation was something he had been involved with, but at the same time he didn't really have a lot of faith in. He's heading to this worldly conference where he'll be the only Mormon within thousands of miles, one of the few americans even, and he's got a grumpy/defeatist attitude about things. The proclamation wasn't new though, he for-sure was already very familiar with it. So why would his wife give him a copy to take? Hey hon, here's one of our church's religious pamphlets, it will help you with your fancy pants lawyer arguments when speaking at the UN. LOL, no! She was giving him a copy of his own paper, so to speak! They had talked about it probably. He had walked her through his thinking on the proclamation, his legal ideas pertaining to it, etc. So she's basically giving him a kick in the pants and telling him to have faith in himself. Even if you don't "think" you'll need this, go ahead, take it anyway... and then after he got there he bounced things off people, it went well, more and more he would draw from material in the proclamation. And then the rest is history. He feels validated, down pouring of spiritual affirmative feelings, and he literally dedicates himself to evangelizing the proclamation and legal arguments (which he entirely developed himself) based on it.
  18. I have been restraining my activity on this board in part due to the Admin's decision to place me on a Limited Status and will continue to self restrict my participation in the future.  But this can not stand and no one has yet put this matter into full context, so that leaves it for me to do it. 

    Elder Oaks has either unwittingly or purposely redefined what a revelation is.  By declaring that the Family : A Proclamation to the World came about through a revelatory process he is declaring that God works through men not called as Prophets, Seers and Revelators to bring forth His revelations for the church.  This is a huge announcement and was completely missed by everyone in this thread. By making this assertion Elder Oaks is undermining the entire revelatory process and its claim that it comes through men called to receive it for the church.  Elder Oaks has admitted that the proclamation came about by way of committee, this too is a huge announcement.  Can anyone on this board point to another revelation that came about via committee composed of men who had not been called and set apart as prophets seers and revelators?  Now how can I claim that the Proclamation involved men other then General Authorities?  I mean that's a pretty big assertions right.  Well I have first hand witness testimony that Professor Wilkins of the BYU Marriott Law School worked on and authored the initial drafts of the proclamation.  This information was shared with me from first hand witnesses who personally asked Bro Wilkins if he had written the proclamation to which he responded by saying that he had in fact written the proclamation.  It then went through a committee correlation process comprising of a committee of higher level General Authorities who tweaked the proclamation and then passed it on up to the First Presidency who tweaked it more and then  handed it over the Quorum of the 12 for approval. 

    The process that Elder Oaks is describing also comes across as a very man made process, while this doesn't comes a surprise to me, I'm quite surprised that believers aren't shocked by this revelation. Revelation by committee? 

    So I know how this board works and I also know that my above claim of first hand witness testimony will be dismissed outright, I at least wanted it on the record that there are in fact first person witnesses who know that Wilkins was the initial author of the Proclamation.  Now that Elder Oaks has claimed a revelatory process, I have no doubt that more definitive evidence will come out to counter his claim and show quite a man made, committee process with GA's only coming into the process long after the proclamation had been written with GA's only acting in an editorial role and not as revelators in the sense members of the church have come to believe.

  19. 54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

    I have a good friend whose close family member was one of Mark Hofmann's victims. Some members of his family were extremely upset to learn that some high-ranking church leaders lied to the police when asked about their dealings with Hofmann. This led some of these family members to doubt their faith, and a few even left the church. My friend said that, although he thought what they did was wrong, he was willing to extend compassion and forgiveness because he believed they were motivated by a desire to "protect the church they love" (his words). That's how I feel about people who lie and trespass, etc., in order to support their loved ones. Would I do it? Obviously not, but I don't condemn them for the same reason my friend (and I, for that matter) did not condemn church leaders who lied to the police. 

    Interesting. Steve was in my mission. Good man

  20. On 10/5/2017 at 1:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

    "Genesis: Paradise Lost," in 3D, Nov 13, 2017, tickets available at genesismovie.com .

    preview available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP6mt20jWIg .

    Evangelical recent creationists are now coming forth with a movie on the Genesis creation, something the Mormons have been doing in their temples for decades.  It'll be interesting to see whether they get it right.


    Who knew evangelicals had any interest in fiction ... oh wait maybe they intend to show it at their Noah’s ark amusement park. That makes sense 

  21. I have nothing but the greatest respect for John Dehlin and the Mormon Stories Foundation...but if anyone needs evidence that members can live an authentic open middle way brand of Mormonism all they have to do is look to John and see what happened to him.


    conformity and assimilation is valued more than authentic individualality 

  • Create New...