Scrutinizing general conference

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I feel his language was clear and I don't interpret it the same as you.

Funny, that.  It's almost as if you interpret remarks from General Authorities not on their face, but on how you need them to come across.  So if you want to attribute to Elder Oaks some sort of claim that the Proclamation was authored exclusively by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then "his language was clear."

But if Elder Oaks speaks "clearly" in other contexts, I suspect you would suddenly find his words "vague" and malleable and open to all sorts of "interpretation" (particularly interpretations which cast the Church in a negative light).

Yes, funny.

Quote

I wouldn't want to venture as guess as to what President Hinckley did or did not presume in 1995 when he presented the Proclamation to the sisters of the church.

No need to "presume."  The Proclamation speaks for itself.

Quote

What we know is that he did not identify it as revelation. 

He identified it as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

Funny how Elder Oaks' "language was clear," but the above statement from Pres. Hinckley is not.

Quote

The document itself does not identify as revelation (it identifies itself as the work of the 15 men who signed it).

Again, the document identifies itself as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

It's a reaffirmation of longstanding revelation ("doctrines...repeatedly stated {by prophets, seers, and revelators} throughout its history").

You keep using the word "revelation" in a strange, hyper-specific, it-only-means-what-I-want-it-to-mean kind of way.

Quote

And we know that Oaks has now identified it, first as the product of "inspiration" and a "revelatory process" and then gave his testimony of it as having been revealed from the Lord to his apostles.

Elder Oaks describes a "revelatory process."  That can include revelatory guidance that confirms previous revelatory guidance.  

What Elder Oaks said is not particularly remarkable except, perhaps, for those who would do well to listen to Peter's counsel in 2 Peter 3:16.  At the end of the day, I think that's what is going on here.

Quote

And he has given us some insight into how that revelatory process functions within the Quorum of the Twelve.

Yes.  This was not a previously unknown "insight," though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

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

Edited October 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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. 

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....? 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Funny, that.  It's almost as if you interpret remarks from General Authorities not on their face, but on how you need them to come across.  So if you want to attribute to Elder Oaks some sort of claim that the Proclamation was authored exclusively by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then "his language was clear."

No.  I am taking his comments on their face.  Believe me -- nothing about that talk was how I would have liked it to come across.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No need to "presume."  The Proclamation speaks for itself.

Yes it does.  And it is a proclamation on behalf of the 15 men who signed it.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He identified it as "a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

Funny how Elder Oaks' "language was clear," but the above statement from Pres. Hinckley is not.

Not sure what you are implying there.  I do think that President Hinckley's language is clear.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You keep using the word "revelation" in a strange, hyper-specific, it-only-means-what-I-want-it-to-mean kind of way.

No.  I use it specifically the way it is defined.  If you feel I haven't, feel free to explain.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What Elder Oaks said is not particularly remarkable except, perhaps, for those who would do well to listen to Peter's counsel in 2 Peter 3:16.  At the end of the day, I think that's what is going on here.

No, it's not what is going on.  I have no problem understanding what Oaks said.  The fact that I did understand it is exactly why I found it interesting.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  This was not a previously unknown "insight," though.

Feel free to share where we have previously been given that kind of detail about the revelatory process of the apostles.

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[juliann]

Quote

 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. 

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?

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Kenngo1969]

Even if someone did write a draft in toto, that does not, ipso facto, mean that the draft bears much (if any) resemblance to the final document (and vice-versa).

P.S.: I find it difficult to believe that Brother Wilkins played as active a role in drafting The Family: A Proclamation to the World as you(r source) claim(s) he did, given some of the other things he has said about it as reported in The Clark Memorandum.  ( "What?  That old rag?!" )

Edited October 9, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  I am taking his comments on their face.  Believe me -- nothing about that talk was how I would have liked it to come across.

Yes, I get that.  The Brethren are declaring what they understand to be the mind and will of the Lord.  What they are saying comports with the scriptures, and with statements made by modern prophets and apostles throughout the history of the Church.

And what they are saying is also manifestly unpopular in today's political climate.  It is not socially popular to speak of, for example, the meaning and purpose of marriage (same-sex marriage does not fit the bill), and of constraining sexual behaviors to boundaries set by God.  In fact, it is so unpopular that those who dare deviate from popular notions of sexual licentiousness are branded as bigots and haters.  Such is the lot of the LDS Church.  We even see organized efforts to punish it for daring to teach what it believes (Fred Karger, call your office).

Which brings us back to how opponents of the LDS Church construe remarks from General Authorities.  That is, such remarks are to be construed in the worst.  Possible.  Light.  Possible.  They are to be construed in any way that facilitates weakening the LDS Church, making it look bad, seeking to turn its members against its leaders and each other, and so on.  So if General Authorities speak clearly (such as we see in the Proclamation), we have sustained and strained efforts to cloud it in ambiguity.  "It's not revelatory, it's not from God, it's just the opinions of a bunch of old guys."  Stuff like that.  But when we see General Authorities speak broadly (passive voice by Elder Oaks ("Subjects were identified..." "Language was proposed..."), allowing for involvement of more than the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency in the preliminary drafting of the Proclamation) then he has be construed very, very strictly, because A) critics want to paint his remarks as claiming that the Quorum of the Twelve and only them were involved in the preliminary drafting of the Proclamation, but B) we have super-duper reliable triple hearsay from Johnnie Cake declaring that a BYU law professor wrote authored the Proclamation, and the Brethren just rubber-stamped it.  Thus Elder Oaks can be accused of lying or misrepresenting the origins of the Proclamation, but only if his remarks are declared to be precise and specific (as you put it: "I find his language to be fairly clear:  the Q12 drafted a document").

So that's the lodestar.  How we approach what the General Authorities say and mean should is, for some, all about construing their remarks so as to attack or undermine the LDS Church.  So remarks from GAs are construed strictly at some times, and loosely interpreted at others.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes it does.  And it is a proclamation on behalf of the 15 men who signed it.

Nope.  It is a proclamation by these men, not on their behalf.

And they made this proclamation not as a means of expressing their cumulative personal opinions, but of them speaking formally to the Church, in their official capacities as prophets, seers, and revelators.

And they weren't just making stuff up on the fly.  They were declaring and reaffirming standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.

See what I mean about trying to use GA remarks to facilitate the weakening the LDS Church, making it look bad, seeking to turn its members against its leaders and each other, and so on?  That's pretty much what I am seeing in this thread.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not sure what you are implying there.  I do think that President Hinckley's language is clear.

See above.  The contents of the Proclamation are clear, so critics try to create ambiguity by claiming it is not binding on the Church, not revelatory, written by a law professor, not revelatory, and so on.

Meanwhile, Elder Oaks makes broad references to a year-long process of formulating the Proclamation, and from that we must conclude that only the Quorum of the Twelve was involved in its formulation.  And we must conclude this because triple hearsay from a hostile source can then be deployed as a basis for accusing Elder Oaks of lying about or otherwise misrepresenting the origins of the Proclamation.

That is the touchstone.  The lodestar.  Statements by GAs must be interpreted in a way to make the LDS Church look bad, to make its leaders appear dishonest, to turn the members of the Church against their leaders and each other, and so on.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Quote

You keep using the word "revelation" in a strange, hyper-specific, it-only-means-what-I-want-it-to-mean kind of way.

No.  I use it specifically the way it is defined.  If you feel I haven't, feel free to explain.

"Revelation" in the LDS paradigm is a very broad term.  You are trying to use it in a very constricted, narrow way, even going so far as to try to differentiate between "inspiration" of prophets, seers and revelators to "revelation" given to prophets, seers, and revelators.  Good luck with that!

For example, in your worldview, a reaffirmation of revealed doctrines (which is what the Proclamation was presented as) cannot be revelatory.  Even if the Presiding High Priest specifically and publicly declares it to be such a reaffirmation of "standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history," it cannot be revelatory. 

In your worldview, even when the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, speaking and acting in their official capacity, jointly issue a formal, public "declaration and reaffirmation" of previously-revealed doctrines, they are not acting under revelation.  I guess they have to use a "magic word" or something.  But then, when such a magic word is used (quoth Elder Oaks: "During this revelatory process..."), then it's still no good.  Fault can still be found.  Elder Oaks was lying!  Wilkins wrote it!  

Heads you win, tails we lose.  

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Quote

What Elder Oaks said is not particularly remarkable except, perhaps, for those who would do well to listen to Peter's counsel in 2 Peter 3:16.  At the end of the day, I think that's what is going on here.

No, it's not what is going on. 

Oh, I think so.  The Proclamation is incompatible with condoning homsexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  It must therefore be discounted.  Ignored.  Sidestepped.  Explained away.  It can't be revelatory because . . . it just can't.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Feel free to share where we have previously been given that kind of detail about the revelatory process of the apostles.

Well, Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016 addressed this issue:

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

Elder Ballard spoke about this issue in the Spring 1994 General Conference about "Counseling with our Councils."  

President N. Eldon Tanner spoke about this issue in 1979 in the 1979 October General Conference: "The Administration of the Church."

From the Church Handbook of Instructions:

Quote

The Lord’s Church is governed through councils at the general, area, stake, and ward levels. These councils are fundamental to the order of the Church.

Under the keys of priesthood leadership at each level, leaders counsel together for the benefit of individuals and families. Council members also plan the work of the Church pertaining to their assignments. Effective councils invite full expression from council members and unify their efforts in responding to individual, family, and organizational needs.

D&C 107 addresses this issue.

And on and on and on.

I will grant that we don't generally know the precise mechanics and procedures of how the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency function in their combined capacity as "The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" (see, e.g., here).  But the general principles (they counsel together, pray, discuss, study, and otherwise take such steps as may be conducive to discerning the will of God) have been known for a very long time.  The origins of the Proclamation fall squarely within the SOP for how things are supposed to be administered in the Church.

So there's nothing particularly stunning about what Elder Oaks said about the origins of the Proclamation.  He provided a few details, yes.  But details about longstanding procedures and courses of conduct.  No Proclamationgate is in the offing. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I get that.  The Brethren are declaring what they understand to be the mind and will of the Lord.  What they are saying comports with the scriptures, and with statements made by modern prophets and apostles throughout the history of the Church.

And what they are saying is also manifestly unpopular in today's political climate.  It is not socially popular to speak of, for example, the meaning and purpose of marriage (same-sex marriage does not fit the bill), and of constraining sexual behaviors to boundaries set by God.  In fact, it is so unpopular that those who dare deviate from popular notions of sexual licentiousness are branded as bigots and haters.  Such is the lot of the LDS Church.  We even see organized efforts to punish it for daring to teach what it believes (Fred Karger, call your office).

Which brings us back to how opponents of the LDS Church construe remarks from General Authorities.  That is, such remarks are to be construed in the worst.  Possible.  Light.  Possible.  They are to be construed in any way that facilitates weakening the LDS Church, making it look bad, seeking to turn its members against its leaders and each other, and so on.  So if General Authorities speak clearly (such as we see in the Proclamation), we have sustained and strained efforts to cloud it in ambiguity.  "It's not revelatory, it's not from God, it's just the opinions of a bunch of old guys."  Stuff like that.  But when we see General Authorities speak broadly (passive voice by Elder Oaks ("Subjects were identified..." "Language was proposed..."), allowing for involvement of more than the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency in the preliminary drafting of the Proclamation) then he has be construed very, very strictly, because A) critics want to paint his remarks as claiming that the Quorum of the Twelve and only them were involved in the preliminary drafting of the Proclamation, but B) we have super-duper reliable triple hearsay from Johnnie Cake declaring that a BYU law professor wrote authored the Proclamation, and the Brethren just rubber-stamped it.  Thus Elder Oaks can be accused of lying or misrepresenting the origins of the Proclamation, but only if his remarks are declared to be precise and specific (as you put it: "I find his language to be fairly clear:  the Q12 drafted a document").

So that's the lodestar.  How we approach what the General Authorities say and mean should is, for some, all about construing their remarks so as to attack or undermine the LDS Church.  So remarks from GAs are construed strictly at some times, and loosely interpreted at others.

Nope.  It is a proclamation by these men, not on their behalf.

And they made this proclamation not as a means of expressing their cumulative personal opinions, but of them speaking formally to the Church, in their official capacities as prophets, seers, and revelators.

And they weren't just making stuff up on the fly.  They were declaring and reaffirming standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.

See what I mean about trying to use GA remarks to facilitate the weakening the LDS Church, making it look bad, seeking to turn its members against its leaders and each other, and so on?  That's pretty much what I am seeing in this thread.

See above.  The contents of the Proclamation are clear, so critics try to create ambiguity by claiming it is not binding on the Church, not revelatory, written by a law professor, not revelatory, and so on.

Meanwhile, Elder Oaks makes broad references to a year-long process of formulating the Proclamation, and from that we must conclude that only the Quorum of the Twelve was involved in its formulation.  And we must conclude this because triple hearsay from a hostile source can then be deployed as a basis for accusing Elder Oaks of lying about or otherwise misrepresenting the origins of the Proclamation.

That is the touchstone.  The lodestar.  Statements by GAs must be interpreted in a way to make the LDS Church look bad, to make its leaders appear dishonest, to turn the members of the Church against their leaders and each other, and so on.

"Revelation" in the LDS paradigm is a very broad term.  You are trying to use it in a very constricted, narrow way, even going so far as to try to differentiate between "inspiration" of prophets, seers and revelators to "revelation" given to prophets, seers, and revelators.  Good luck with that!

For example, in your worldview, a reaffirmation of revealed doctrines (which is what the Proclamation was presented as) cannot be revelatory.  Even if the Presiding High Priest specifically and publicly declares it to be such a reaffirmation of "standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history," it cannot be revelatory. 

In your worldview, even when the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, speaking and acting in their official capacity, jointly issue a formal, public "declaration and reaffirmation" of previously-revealed doctrines, they are not acting under revelation.  I guess they have to use a "magic word" or something.  But then, when such a magic word is used (quoth Elder Oaks: "During this revelatory process..."), then it's still no good.  Fault can still be found.  Elder Oaks was lying!  Wilkins wrote it!  

Heads you win, tails we lose.  

Oh, I think so.  The Proclamation is incompatible with condoning homsexual behavior and same-sex marriage.  It must therefore be discounted.  Ignored.  Sidestepped.  Explained away.  It can't be revelatory because . . . it just can't.

Well, Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016 addressed this issue:

Elder Ballard spoke about this issue in the Spring 1994 General Conference about "Counseling with our Councils."  

President N. Eldon Tanner spoke about this issue in 1979 in the 1979 October General Conference: "The Administration of the Church."

From the Church Handbook of Instructions:

D&C 107 addresses this issue.

And on and on and on.

I will grant that we don't generally know the precise mechanics and procedures of how the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency function in their combined capacity as "The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" (see, e.g., here).  But the general principles (they counsel together, pray, discuss, study, and otherwise take such steps as may be conducive to discerning the will of God) have been known for a very long time.  The origins of the Proclamation fall squarely within the SOP for how things are supposed to be administered in the Church.

So there's nothing particularly stunning about what Elder Oaks said about the origins of the Proclamation.  He provided a few details, yes.  But details about longstanding procedures and courses of conduct.  No Proclamationgate is in the offing. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, Oaks provided some specific details about the process.  Details that aren’t provided in the other examples you cited.  That was my point.  

As for the rest of your treatise above, I don’t really see it as being a response to me because I am not concerned with the current political climate — it doesn’t affect my belief system.  Nor am I an opponent or critic of the church.

Finally, employing your definition or interpretation of revelation is not incumbent on me.  But, I’m fine with Oaks calling the Proclamation a revelation.  You’ll note that what I highlighted here as having learned from Oaks last week (and from Nelson prior) is the insight into how he views that revelatory process and what he considers revelation to be.  Since you appear to agree with Oaks’ view of revelation, I assume we’ve found some common ground. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by rockpond

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[smac97]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Proclamation contains far more than a "position on marriage and the Law of Chastity".

Yes.  It also speaks of gender as an "essential characteristic" of each of us.  I think that is about as close as we get to doctrinal innovation.  The Proclamation is otherwise a "declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 10/9/2017 at 3:14 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

My source has contacted me and asked that I correct what I have attributed to Wilkins.

And thus we see why hearsay is generally not construed as competent, credible evidence.  

Quote

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.

I gathered that.

Quote

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

"He personally told you that he wrote the Proclamation on the Family."  

I am . . . skeptical that this is an accurate characterization of what Bro. Wilkins may have said.  Per Elder Oaks, the Proclamation went through extensive revisions and changes and whatnot.

So I'll continue to be skeptical about an anonymous and patently-hostile-to-Mormonism online poster telling us what his anonymous friend said that characterizes / paraphrases / gives us the gist of something that Bro. Wilkins may have said.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 23, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

"He is only a witness of hearing Wilkins tell my source that he was the author."

There is also the issue of interpretation and memory from the description.  It was not a written conversation, but spoken.  He was connecting dots.  He claims he came right out and asked Wilkins and got a sheepish admission, but what did the admission entail?  A "yes", a look, another vague statement that could be interpreted in multiple ways?  I have to wonder if we were able to ask Bro. Wilkins the same thing if he would remember the conversation in the same way, including the information conveyed.

I have seen too many conversations where I hear practically opposite descriptions from the people involved ("yes, we agreed that this loss would be forgiven and we will cover future costs, so we get to stay" vs. "no, no agreement was made so they forfeit and they have to move out in two weeks" caused some major hurt feelings in the family).  As time goes on, language used in descriptions often becomes more black and white as well. With a few I heard it myself and neither of them are right from my view.  I don't accept anything these days as solid evidence except if they can show it was written at the time.

People are always having a conversation in their head while they are talking to others.  They often get confused which is which when remembering the circumstances.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Finally, employing your definition or interpretation of revelation is not incumbent on me.  

True.  What is incumbent on us is how that term is used in LDS discussions generally.

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, I’m fine with Oaks calling the Proclamation a revelation.  

He said that it arose by way of a "revelatory process."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Cakester,

I would be interested if your source has anything to say regarding Bro. Wilkins's alleged primary authorship of The Family: A Proclamation to the World in light of what Bro. Wilkins himself said regarding the Proclamation in his account of what transpired in the UN meeting.  That account certainly doesn't read as though Bro. Wilkins had the central role your source is claiming he had.  Any clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Ken

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It also speaks of gender as an "essential characteristic" of each of us.  I think that is about as close as we get to doctrinal innovation.  The Proclamation is otherwise a "declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history."

Thanks,

-Smac

Talmage taught the principle of gender as an essential and eternal characteristic many decades ago. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

True.  What is incumbent on us is how that term is used in LDS discussions generally.

He said that it arose by way of a "revelatory process."

Thanks,

-Smac

LDS discussions make it incumbent on us?  I would disagree with that. 

In addition to referring to the revelatory process, Oaks also said that it was revealed by the Lord in his concluding testimony. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No caginess intended.    

Right.  You are relentlessly hostile to the LDS Church, and have come to this board to anonymously purvey triple hearsay gossip from some other unidentified and anonymous "source" about what he claims to have heard from Bro. Wilkins.  

No, that's not cagey at all.

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My source saw my post and asked that I take a step back from my statement,  he didn't want anything over stated.

Right.  'Cuz nothing bespeaks honesty more than a relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism peddling gossip from purportedly another anonymous source claiming to be a friend of a dead Mormon about that dead Mormon, with the apparent purpose of undermining or otherwise tearing down the dead man's religion.

Yes.  This is how Truth is found.  Or something.

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

He wanted me to make it clear that he was not a first hand witness that Wilkins authored the first drafts of the proclamation.

Yes, I gathered that.  

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

He is only repeating what he heard Wilkins tell him in a personal one on one conversation. 

Says the relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism, who has no competency to tell us one way or the other whether his anonymous "source" is "repeating what he heard" or is just making it up whole cloth.

This is rather the problem with hearsay.

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In that conversation Wilkins told my source that he wrote the PoF,

You cannot credibly tell us what was said in "that conversation" because you weren't there.

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

my source wanted to make it clear that he is only sharing what Wilkins told him in that conversation. nothing more. 

An anonymous critic of Mormonism quotes an anonymous "source" about what yet another person said.  All in an effort to impeach the credibility of Elder Oaks' description of how the Proclamation came to be.

Golly!  With this caliber of evidence, who wouldn't be convinced?

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

Again, you cannot credibly tell us what your anonymous "source" witnessed.  You weren't there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

LDS discussions make it incumbent on us?  I would disagree with that. 

General usage of the word "revelation" in the LDS Church (by General Authorities, in the Church's published materials, etc.) should predominate over more generic definitions used in dictionaries.

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In addition to referring to the revelatory process, Oaks also said that it was revealed by the Lord in his concluding testimony. 

Yes.  I believe that.  I have no ax to grind as far as that goes.  I'm not trying to paint Elder Oaks as a liar by juxtaposing his remarks with purported triple anonymous hearsay statements attributed to a dead Mormon law professor (as Johnnie Cake is doing).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

So anonymous critic Johnnie is now posting further purported musings from some other anonymous fellow, who claims that he heard a dead Mormon law professor say something once.  And this purported second anonymous guy is somehow competent to function as a witness as to the origins of the Proclamation?  Really?  

What is the factual basis for this anonymous multiple hearsay fellow declaring that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}?"  That there was an "utter lack of revelation" involved in its promulgation?  Was he a percipient witness to the process described by Elder Oaks (who, obviously, was a percipient witness)?  We have no way of knowing, because we don't know who this source is, or even if he exists at all.  We don't know Johnnie Cake, either.

Johnnie, you are an anonymous critic of Mormonism.  You are passing on gossipy hearsay which you claim is from some other anonymous "source."  This other anonymous source then purportedly claims that Richard Wilkins, a Mormon law professor, said something once.  This other anonymous source then purports to emphasize that the real value of his statements about Bro. Wilkins are not in the contents of the statement, but rather that this statement from the now-deceased Bro. Wilkins somehow demonstrates that "God didn't author {the Proclamation}."

You cannot be serious.  I don't think I have seen any critical argument as absurd, as contrived, as convoluted, as utterly lacking in reason or coherence, as this.  In a thread about "scrutinizing General Conference," we have descended to this?

Why should we privilege the say-so of an anonymous, nestled-in-hearsay, definitely-not-a-percipient-witness "source" over the literally percipient, first-hand testimony by Dallin H. Oaks?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

General usage of the word "revelation" in the LDS Church (by General Authorities, in the Church's published materials, etc.) should predominate over more generic definitions used in dictionaries.

Yes.  I believe that.  I have no ax to grind as far as that goes.  I'm not trying to paint Elder Oaks as a liar by juxtaposing his remarks with purported triple anonymous hearsay statements attributed to a dead Mormon law professor (as Johnnie Cake is doing).

Thanks,

-Smac

Is JohnnieCake calling Oaks a liar?  Did he say that (I admittedly don’t read every post in every thread)?  Or is JohnnieCake pointing out what Oaks considers the revelatory process to be?  Just as Nelson outlined “revelation” in a manner that might not be what many expected. 

For me, it’s good to know that the apostles seem to consider the results of a prayerful and inspired council, possibly working from a proclamation or policy written by someone outside the Quorum, to fall under the banner of revelation.  I appreciate Oaks and Nelson sharing that with us. 

My disagreement with Oaks’ talk from last week was his declaration of what “converted” members must believe about the Proclamation.  I believe he’s wrong about that which, of course, is within my agency to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost on the matter rather than the words of a man. 

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  You are relentlessly hostile to the LDS Church, and have come to this board to anonymously purvey triple hearsay gossip from some other unidentified and anonymous "source" about what he claims to have heard from Bro. Wilkins.  

No, that's not cagey at all.

Right.  'Cuz nothing bespeaks honesty more than a relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism peddling gossip from purportedly another anonymous source claiming to be a friend of a dead Mormon about that dead Mormon, with the apparent purpose of undermining or otherwise tearing down the dead man's religion.

Yes.  This is how Truth is found.  Or something.

Yes, I gathered that.  

Says the relentlessly hostile and anonymous critic of Mormonism, who has no competency to tell us one way or the other whether his anonymous "source" is "repeating what he heard" or is just making it up whole cloth.

This is rather the problem with hearsay.

You cannot credibly tell us what was said in "that conversation" because you weren't there.

An anonymous critic of Mormonism quotes an anonymous "source" about what yet another person said.  All in an effort to impeach the credibility of Elder Oaks' description of how the Proclamation came to be.

Golly!  With this caliber of evidence, who wouldn't be convinced?

Again, you cannot credibly tell us what your anonymous "source" witnessed.  You weren't there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Am I missing something? Do you and Bro Cake have a history?  You're running the risk of turning the guy into a martyr.  He doesn't appear to be pushing his views just offering another perspective, additional information.  Believe it or don't.  So what am I missing. 

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"He is only a witness of hearing Wilkins tell my source that he was the author."

There is also the issue of interpretation and memory from the description.  It was not a written conversation, but spoken.  He was connecting dots.  He claims he came right out and asked Wilkins and got a sheepish admission, but what did the admission entail?  A "yes", a look, another vague statement that could be interpreted in multiple ways?  I have to wonder if we were able to ask Bro. Wilkins the same thing if he would remember the conversation in the same way, including the information conveyed.

I have seen too many conversations where I hear practically opposite descriptions from the people involved ("yes, we agreed that this loss would be forgiven and we will cover future costs, so we get to stay" vs. "no, no agreement was made so they forfeit and they have to move out in two weeks" caused some major hurt feelings in the family).  As time goes on, language used in descriptions often becomes more black and white as well. With a few I heard it myself and neither of them are right from my view.  I don't accept anything these days as solid evidence except if they can show it was written at the time.

People are always having a conversation in their head while they are talking to others.  They often get confused which is which when remembering the circumstances.

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. 

[ksfisher]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

My disagreement with Oaks’ talk from last week was his declaration of what “converted” members must believe about the Proclamation.  I believe he’s wrong about that which, of course, is within my agency to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost on the matter rather than the words of a man. 

"Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation, issued nearly a 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?