Scrutinizing general conference

[jkwilliams]

12 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

I've always assumed that the proclamation came about the same way as pretty much everything else the church publishes: the GAs ask for a document, publication, etc., to be produced and assign it to the relevant department. A writing committee is formed, and they write a draft. It then goes to the Editing department, which edits/revises and then sends it back to the originating department. It is then submitted to Correlation for review and returned to the originating department, which works with Editing to implement any changes from the Correlation review. After the originators, Editing, and Correlation sign off, it goes to the relevant GAs (in this case the 12 and the First Presidency, I'd imagine) for approval. My guess is that Sister Okazaki's statement means that the Relief Society was not involved as one of the originating departments and was not involved with the writing committee, as it would be only in those two cases that the Relief Society would have had authority to review the proclamation. 

During the time I worked there, I never saw any document or publication that was drafted by the First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve, other than letters to be read at the pulpit, and often these were written by the relevant department and just signed by the Brethren. I have a hard time imagining that the proclamation was produced in a different way.

[Button Gwinnett]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like a position statement upon which church policy will be founded. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a "declaration" and a "reaffirmation" of standards but it doesn't sound particularly "revelatory". Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but rather "revelation". Perhaps his memory is fading or maybe he is in disagreement with the way Pres. Hinkley presented it.

Thanks for posting Pres. Hinkley's words.

At one of my mission reunions, my mission president handed out copies of the Proclamation on the Family to all in attendance.  Just prior to leaving the reunion I approached my mission President and asked if he wouldn't mind writing a short testimony and add his autograph to my copy. (my MP was a GA of prominence)  He looked me in the eye and said, Elder we've been instructed not to autograph scripture.  This was some 20 years ago, I had never considered the PoF scripture, but he sure did. 

[Button Gwinnett]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

No, there were earlier discussions than that one, such as this:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

and

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Ties it to Hawaii:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2011/05/rethinking-the-proclamation/

That the Proclamation came out of the cultural environment then taking place in Hawaii seems rather natural.  No one should have any difficulty with this.

[ksfisher]

12 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Did you notice in the article where it cites an interview Sister Okazaki did with Greg Prince where she complained how she didn't have any imput in putting together the document? She thought the document needed to be changed in some areas and was upset the Relief Society wasn't consulted prior to publication. 

Doesn't this interview undercut the revelation claim? If it was a revelation, wouldn't it have been presented as such to the Relief Society and Sister Okazaki? Instead, she thought that the document was in need of some changes and more importantly, she thought that it could be changed, as in it wasn't a revelation but a mere statement of belief. Also, a stay the course statement doesn't seem to be very revelatory.

So revelations to the church need to go through the General Relief Society Presidency?  Not to denigrate them in any way but I'm not sure that's their role.

And if we're worried about the relief society not being consulted why not the young men, young women, and primary.  They represent organizations that are part of the Proclamation as well.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So revelations to the church need to go through the General Relief Society Presidency?  Not to denigrate them in any way but I'm not sure that's their role.

And if we're worried about the relief society not being consulted why not the young men, young women, and primary.  They represent organizations that are part of the Proclamation as well.

If I remember right, the reason that Sis O. was annoyed they weren't consulted is because Pres. Hinckley made a big deal out of revealing the proclamation during the RS general conference, implying that the women should feel special to have had the honor.  I think that Sis. O's perspective was that a better way to make the women feel special would have been to include them in the process or creating the proclamation.

It wasn't about every organization or auxiliary that will be impacted being able to be a part of there process, but about every gender that will be impacted being able to be a part of the process.  

  

 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

It wasn't about every organization or auxiliary that will be impacted being able to be a part of there process, but about every gender that will be impacted being able to be a part of the process.  

  

 

So why the relief society?  Why not the young women?  Both have stewardship for the women of the church, but neither for all of the women in the church.

And if every gender that is impacted by a revelation needs to be consulted then every revelation that applies to the entire church would need to go from the prophet to the relief society for approval, wouldn't it?

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So why the relief society? 

I think it was an issue because the general relief society had prepared their meeting (with a lot of effort and work having gone into it) and then they were asked to change their direction so the proclamation could be presented instead.  Iirc, it was kind of late notice or almost last minute.  The presidency would have liked some input into the proclamation since they were being asked to present it.  There's a video with the a member of the general presidency explaining and I think none of them were too happy about what took place, but of course supported the brethren and did what was asked of them.

I'll try to look it up later if I can get back on here, but others can correct whatever I've not remembered correctly.

ETA:

Ok, with a quick search I found it.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFCWUoXr1Dg&feature=youtu.be&t=1m4s

And more info:

Quote

Two weeks before the October 1995 General Conference, President Hinckley met with the General Relief Society presidency to discuss their plans for their general meeting that would be held the last Saturday in September. At that time, he informed President Elaine Jack and her counselors Aileen Clyde and Chieko Okazaki that he had a Proclamation on the Family that he was going to introduce at conference and that during the course of their meeting, he had decided that he would like to make it public during the Relief Society meeting. He also asked the General Relief Society presidency to adjust the focus of their remarks so that they would address the idea of “traditional families” rather than the diversity curriculum they had previously prepared. The audio is not strong in this video, but it is a recording of Aileen Clyde speaking at a women’s conference at Claremont Graduate University in 2011, telling this story.

Sister Okazaki also discussed how the General Relief Society presidency learned about the Proclamation when she sat down with Greg Prince in November, 2005.  Prince captured that interview in the Spring 2012 issue of Dialogue . As she recalled,

"n 1995 when 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”…

They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.

Sometimes I think they get so busy that they forget that we are there."

http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

 

 

   

Edited October 3, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I've always assumed that the proclamation came about the same way as pretty much everything else the church publishes: the GAs ask for a document, publication, etc., to be produced and assign it to the relevant department. A writing committee is formed, and they write a draft. It then goes to the Editing department, which edits/revises and then sends it back to the originating department. It is then submitted to Correlation for review and returned to the originating department, which works with Editing to implement any changes from the Correlation review. After the originators, Editing, and Correlation sign off, it goes to the relevant GAs (in this case the 12 and the First Presidency, I'd imagine) for approval. My guess is that Sister Okazaki's statement means that the Relief Society was not involved as one of the originating departments and was not involved with the writing committee, as it would be only in those two cases that the Relief Society would have had authority to review the proclamation. 

During the time I worked there, I never saw any document or publication that was drafted by the First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve, other than letters to be read at the pulpit, and often these were written by the relevant department and just signed by the Brethren. I have a hard time imagining that the proclamation was produced in a different way.

How many official proclamations of the nature of this one were produced during the time you worked there? I’m guessing none, as there have been only five published in the history of the Church. 

Perhaps Sister Okazaki’s problem stems at least partly from the fact that she failed to recognize a fundamental difference between a run-of-the-mill lesson manual or magazine article and an official proclamation of this sort, as you apparently do. 

Finally, I’m thinking the texts of the general conference addresses are on line by now. What in Elder Oaks’s description does not ring true to you?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it was an issue because the general relief society had prepared their meeting (with a lot of effort and work having gone into it) and then they were asked to change their direction so the proclamation could be presented instead.  Iirc, it was kind of late notice or almost last minute.  The presidency would have liked some input into the proclamation since they were being asked to present it.  There's a video with the president explaining and I think none of them were too happy about what took place, but of course supported the brethren and did what was asked of them.

I'll try to look it up later if I can get back on here, but others can correct whatever I've not remembered correctly.

They weren’t asked to present it. It was read at their meeting. The only difference is they were asked to change the tenor of their talks to pertain to the traditional family. 

Presumably one called to a position of such high responsibility and visibility would be capable of revising a talk. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

So why the relief society?  Why not the young women?  Both have stewardship for the women of the church, but neither for all of the women in the church.

 

Like I said, because Pres. Hinckley made a big deal out of it being presented during the RS meeting  (this was back when the RS has a general meeting every year in Sept. and the YW had a general meeting every year in March or April).   THat's why sis. O was focused on RS input (that and also because RS encompasses all women in the church, that is their stewardship.  YW only have stewardship over the young women, and even then it is only a partial stewardship because it's really the parents that carry that responsibility and not the YW and YM leaders).

Quote

And if every gender that is impacted by a revelation needs to be consulted then every revelation that applies to the entire church would need to go from the prophet to the relief society for approval, wouldn't it?

It's not about approval, but about having a voice.  That's basically why the church is putting a new emphasis on Ward Councils, to correct a mistake and give women a permeant voice in church leadership and development.  It's an exciting thing. 

Women to join key, leading LDS Church councils and committees

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They weren’t asked to present it. It was read at their meeting. The only difference is they were asked to change the tenor of their talks to pertain to the traditional family. 

Presumably one called to a position of such high responsibility and visibility would be capable of revising a talk. 

Of course none of the sisters were asked to actually "present it" (since you're getting technical here).  But the focus of their meeting was changed so that the proclamation could be introduced or presented.  

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They weren’t asked to present it. It was read at their meeting. The only difference is they were asked to change the tenor of their talks to pertain to the traditional family. 

Presumably one called to a position of such high responsibility and visibility would be capable of revising a talk. 

Is there any reason to imply that any of them were annoyed that they had to revise their talks?

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 (that and also because RS encompasses all women in the church, that is their stewardship.  YW only have stewardship over the young women, and even then it is only a partial stewardship because it's really the parents that carry that responsibility and not the YW and YM leaders).

 

 

I hate to disagree with you here (because I seem to agree with you so much), but the relief society does not have stewardship over all the women of the church.  According to Handbook 2 9.1.4 "All adult women in the Church are members of Relief Society."  Before that the primary or young womens program has that stewardship.  And that is what I don't understand about those who say the relief society should have had input.  Why not these other organizations that have stewardship for women?  Why just the relief society? 

[Button Gwinnett]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, because Pres. Hinckley made a big deal out of it being presented during the RS meeting  (this was back when the RS has a general meeting every year in Sept. and the YW had a general meeting every year in March or April).   THat's why sis. O was focused on RS input (that and also because RS encompasses all women in the church, that is their stewardship.  YW only have stewardship over the young women, and even then it is only a partial stewardship because it's really the parents that carry that responsibility and not the YW and YM leaders).

It's not about approval, but about having a voice.  That's basically why the church is putting a new emphasis on Ward Councils, to correct a mistake and give women a permeant voice in church leadership and development.  It's an exciting thing. 

Women to join key, leading LDS Church councils and committees

 

I've always found it helpful that when holding discussions that have direct impact on women to actually involve women in those discussions.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

It's not about approval, but about having a voice.  That's basically why the church is putting a new emphasis on Ward Councils, to correct a mistake and give women a permeant voice in church leadership and development.  It's an exciting thing. 

 

 

It is exciting.  But like I said, why do those who believe that the relief society should have had input in the Proclamation not saying that the primary and young women should have as well?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It is exciting.  But like I said, why do those who believe that the relief society should have had input in the Proclamation not saying that the primary and young women should have as well?

Do they believe that?  Sis. O was speaking from the RS perspective.  That makes sense because it was their meeting being discussed and she was in the RS presidency.  But I doubt that she, or anyone else, believed that only RS should have a say.  

We have to be careful not to take one or two sentences, spoken to address a specific RS meeting, and believe that they represent everything she feels on the subject.  

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

We have to be careful not to take one or two sentences, spoken to address a specific RS meeting, and believe that they represent everything she feels on the subject.  

Agreed.  I would like to hear more form her about this.

Edited October 3, 2017 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I hate to disagree with you here (because I seem to agree with you so much), but the relief society does not have stewardship over all the women of the church.  According to Handbook 2 9.1.4 "All adult women in the Church are members of Relief Society."  Before that the primary or young womens program has that stewardship.  And that is what I don't understand about those who say the relief society should have had input.  Why not these other organizations that have stewardship for women?  Why just the relief society? 

I thought you would understand that I was using the normal definition of what a woman is-a female 18 years old and older.  Any female under the age of 18 would not be referred to as woman in a church conversation such as we are having. In the church we call those young women or girls.  

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by bluebell

[Rain]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So why the relief society?  Why not the young women?  Both have stewardship for the women of the church, but neither for all of the women in the church.

And if every gender that is impacted by a revelation needs to be consulted then every revelation that applies to the entire church would need to go from the prophet to the relief society for approval, wouldn't it?

Like Scott has said, the proclamation is different than other revelations. This one did not tell us new things, but did remind us of things we needed to know.

Sister Beck once said something along the lines of good information makes for good inspiration. There was a speaker on Sunday that shared the importance of looking beyond - understanding people before trying to solve what seems to be their concerns, but really aren't.

So considering the nature of this, considering that the 12 apostles and 1st presidency worked on it, (instead of it coming as a vision etc)  then it seems that working with the women, getting good information from both sexes might help make the inspiration received as a council stronger and perhaps there were other things or different ways that might have been brought out through that inspiration.

Perhaps not. I'm not going to criticize it as I was not a part of that process. Just answering your question with possibilities.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Rain

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How many official proclamations of the nature of this one were produced during the time you worked there? I’m guessing none, as there have been only five published in the history of the Church. 

Perhaps Sister Okazaki’s problem stems at least partly from the fact that she failed to recognize a fundamental difference between a run-of-the-mill lesson manual or magazine article and an official proclamation of this sort, as you apparently do. 

Finally, I’m thinking the texts of the general conference addresses are on line by now. What in Elder Oaks’s description does not ring true to you?

I haven't read it. Wasn't planning on it. If I'm wrong about how it came about, I'm wrong. Not a problem.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, because Pres. Hinckley made a big deal out of it being presented during the RS meeting  (this was back when the RS has a general meeting every year in Sept. and the YW had a general meeting every year in March or April).   THat's why sis. O was focused on RS input (that and also because RS encompasses all women in the church, that is their stewardship.  YW only have stewardship over the young women, and even then it is only a partial stewardship because it's really the parents that carry that responsibility and not the YW and YM leaders).

It's not about approval, but about having a voice.  That's basically why the church is putting a new emphasis on Ward Councils, to correct a mistake and give women a permeant voice in church leadership and development.  It's an exciting thing. 

Women to join key, leading LDS Church councils and committees

 

This is a memory way back when, when it first came out we had a Enrichment Activity and the proclamation was put into a frame to take home, I believe I paid for the frame etc. and the PoF was given to us with the suggestion that we hang them in a prominant area in our homes so that we could see it daily. I hadn't realized it was put out for the chance that one day I would have to decide which is correct, no SSM or yes SSM, IMO. But I do know it's for much more than deciding that or getting a lesson about keeping a man and woman as the only union acceptable. 

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought you would understand that I was using the normal definition of what a woman is-a female 18 years old and older.  Any female under the age of 18 would not be referred to as woman in a church conversation such as we are having. In the church we call those young women or girls.

 

When you wrote "all women" and put all in italics I took that to mean that by emphasizing the word all that you meant all females in the church.

Edited October 3, 2017 by ksfisher
sp

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Like Scott has said, the proclamation is different than other revelations. This one did not tell us new things, but did remind us of things we needed to know.

Sister Beck once said something along the lines of good information makes for good inspiration. There was a speaker on Sunday that shared the importance of looking beyond - understanding people before trying to solve what seems to be their concerns, but really aren't.

So considering the nature of this, considering that the 12 apostles and 1st presidency worked on it, (instead of it coming as a vision etc)  then it seems that working with the women, getting good information from both sexes might help make the inspiration received as a council stronger and perhaps there were other things or different ways that might have been brought out through that inspiration.

Perhaps not. I'm not going to criticize it as I was not a part of that process. Just answering your question with possibilities.

 

This is a fair point.

I would just raise the possibility that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve felt they had already received significant input from the women's auxiliary leaders in the course of their regular interactions with them (I'm assuming they as a matter of course follow the model that Elder Ballard has outlined in his "Counseling with Our Councils) to the point that they were sufficiently informed to go ahead and draft the proclamation without involving outside individuals, councils, committees, etc.. We should bear in mind that the family proclamation is, by definition, a proclamation from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is there any reason to imply that any of them were annoyed that they had to revise their talks?

I don't feel I made that implication. It certainly wasn't intended.

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There will be no peace until Jesus returns.

Well...I can't wait...but guess I will..