Scrutinizing general conference

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

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

I'd say the exaggeration that seems evident in the retelling makes it all faith promoting rumor.  I get that the event took place and I'm sure Wilkins read the proclamation.  But I doubt there were ladies who thought he should be dead for reading the rather innocuous page.  I doubt it made quite the impact that is claimed. 

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

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

 

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

I don't think you have it correctly.  His line upon line was not suggesting each line of the document was authored by God to the 12's collective seer stone.  The line upon line was in reference to them learning about the doctrine defined in the document.  Kind of a silly claim, though, seeing as Hinckley passed if off as a summary of teachings already promoted. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say the exaggeration that seems evident in the retelling makes it all faith promoting rumor. 

"All?"

Even the first-hand reports from Bro. Wilkins?

Quote

I get that the event took place and I'm sure Wilkins read the proclamation.  But I doubt there were ladies who thought he should be dead for reading the rather innocuous page. 

Well, Bro. Wilkins, a percipient witness, appears to have reported it ("Frustrated, one prominent Women’s Caucus leader suggested to Wilkins that he was a 'man' and could 'never understand.' She even went so far as to say that people like Wilkins 'hardly deserved to live.'").  You are, of course, at liberty to discount that.  But we are likewise at liberty to discount your discounting.

And so it goes...

Quote

I doubt it made quite the impact that is claimed. 

You weren't there.  As between your baseless and hostile skepticism and Bro. Wilkins' remarks, I'll go with the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 5, 2017 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Oh, come on, Smac!   Everybody knows about The Clark Memorandum's penchant for latching on to the latest faith-promoting rumor and printing it as though it were gospel!  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"All?"

Even the first-hand reports from Bro. Wilkins?

Well, Bro. Wilkins, a percipient witness, appears to have reported it ("Frustrated, one prominent Women’s Caucus leader suggested to Wilkins that he was a 'man' and could 'never understand.' She even went so far as to say that people like Wilkins 'hardly deserved to live.'").  You are, of course, at liberty to discount that.  But we are likewise at liberty to discount your discounting.

And so it goes...

You weren't there.  As between your baseless and hostile skepticism and Bro. Wilkins' remarks, I'll go with the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

I already realize you'll go with the latter.  You asked me my opinion so I gave it.   I didn't expect to penetrate your pile of armor. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I already realize you'll go with the latter.  You asked me my opinion so I gave it.   I didn't expect to penetrate your pile of armor. 

The difference is that my opinion is based on prima facie evidence (Bro. Wilkins' account), where yours is based on . . . well, you know.  Something other than evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The difference is that my opinion is based on prima facie evidence (Bro. Wilkins' account), where yours is based on . . . well, you know.  Something other than evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep common sense here.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yep common sense here.  

Common sense tells you that Richard Wilkins is a liar?

And you base that on . . . what?

-Smac

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Common sense tells you that Richard Wilkins is a liar?

And you base that on . . . what?

-Smac

Didn’t say that, of course

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Didn’t say that, of course

Of course not.

Ah, the beauty of insinuation and innuendo!

-Smac

[Button Gwinnett]

I've been trying to nail this down a bit and came across this interesting quote from Elder Packer, It seems to shed some light on why the 1st Presidency felt it needed a proclamation in the first place.

Quote

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned. It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position." -https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer_instrument-mind-foundation-character/

Another interesting quote from Wilkins, note the date that he says he FIRST became involved with family policy, it would be an odd thing to say for a man who allegedly wrote the proclamation.

Quote

I first became involved with issues of family policy and society in June 1996, when, almost by accident, I attended a U.N. conference in Istanbul, Turkey

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/richard-g-wilkins_defending-family/

 

Here is evidence that the subject was on Elder Oaks mind from as early as the 1993 General Conference

Quote

Dallin H. Oaks: “Modern revelation makes clear that what we call gender was part of our existence prior to our birth. God declares that he created “male and female” (D&C 20:18; Moses 2:27; Gen. 1:27). Elder James E. Talmage explained: “The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life; it was an essential characteristic of our pre-existent condition” (Millennial Star, 24 Aug. 1922, p. 539).”

And here is an interesting Chronology made by an anthropology Professor at USU http://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

At least the theorist you talked to didn’t say “Kirkland” McConkie. 

[Wiki Wonka]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At least the theorist you talked to didn’t say “Kirkland” McConkie. 

Yes...you need to watch out for those high powered Costco lawyers.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think you have it correctly.  His line upon line was not suggesting each line of the document was authored by God to the 12's collective seer stone.  The line upon line was in reference to them learning about the doctrine defined in the document.  Kind of a silly claim, though, seeing as Hinckley passed if off as a summary of teachings already promoted. 

I think it is you who has it wrong. The “line upon line” remark had to do with the gradual inspiration/revelation involved in determining the optimal way to word the document, what to include, what might have future import in a changing society, etc. 

The apostles were already well-versed in the plan of salvation, eternal families, the part that traditional marriage plays in the doctrines, etc., unlike some today who purport to be Mormons yet seem disturbingly ignorant of such truths. 

Furthermore, the apostles would not have offloaded the duty to prepare such a document under revelation onto Richard Wilkins or Chieko Okazaki or anyone else. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

Yes...you need to watch out for those high powered Costco lawyers.

Is Costco AKA "The Kirkland Temple"?  

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

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?  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

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

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

This was one of two major things that stood out to me from Oaks' talk.  He really has given interesting insight into the "revelatory process".  Consider what he said...

"The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised.

"During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley."

First, he states that the "subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year".

So, the Q12 started the "revelatory process" without the Prophet and President of the Church.  It wasn't until later (over a year later) that they presented him with the document.

We can combine that insight with what President Nelson taught regarding the November 2015 policy:

"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."

What is interesting with this is that we have learned from MormonLeaks that a form of the policy was already circulating among general authorities via email as early as July 2015.  Did they start with that and then modify it through the above process?

It would appear from these accounts that the Q12 and FP work very similarly to other councils and committees in the church (at least in my experience).

Edited October 9, 2017 by rockpond

[Johnnie Cake]

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://books.google.com/books?id=5iNvv46gY6cC&pg=PA365

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.

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

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. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This was one of two major things that stood out to me from Oaks' talk.  He really has given interesting insight into the "revelatory process".  Consider what he said...

"The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised.

"During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley."

First, he states that the "subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year".

So, the Q12 started the "revelatory process" without the Prophet and President of the Church.  It wasn't until later (over a year later) that they presented him with the document.

It does not say it was done "without" the prophet. It says:

"Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve"

"Language was proposed, reviewed, and revise"

"Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. "

And

"During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency"

That COULD mean the prophet only saw it when it was complete, but it also could mean they were involved with the process the whole way and in the end gave the final approval of the whole process. 

Edited to add: not trying to justify things here. Whatever happened I am not concerned. I just don't think we can assume it was done "without" the prophet.

 

 

Quote

We can combine that insight with what President Nelson taught regarding the November 2015 policy:

"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."

What is interesting with this is that we have learned from MormonLeaks that a form of the policy was already circulating among general authorities via email as early as July 2015.  Did they start with that and then modify it through the above process?

It would appear from these accounts that the Q12 and FP work very similarly to other councils and committees in the church (at least in my experience).

How cool is this? I admit that not all of my experiences are like this, but when you work on something and get those "little packets of light" as a council it a wonderful experience in receiving revelation. 

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Rain

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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. 

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.

[Rain]

9 minutes 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.

Especially when he actually says that he "connected the dots". 

And again, if he was part or a good deal of the writing process it doesn't mean anything to me. What Elder Oak's said could easily work with it.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

It does not say it was done "without" the prophet. It says:

"Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve"

"Language was proposed, reviewed, and revise"

"Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. "

And

"During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency"

That COULD mean the prophet only saw it when it was complete, but it also could mean they were involved with the process the whole way and in the end gave the final approval of the whole process. 

Edited to add: not trying to justify things here. Whatever happened I am not concerned. I just don't think we can assume it was done "without" the prophet.

 

 

How cool is this? I admit that not all of my experiences are like this, but when you work on something and get those "little packets of light" as a council it a wonderful experience in receiving revelation. 

 

I find his language to be fairly clear:  the Q12 drafted a documented and then presented it to the FP.  The FP made additional changes and announced it.  This process could explain why Oaks felt that it was "revelatory" but President Hinckley did not announce it as such.