Scrutinizing general conference

[Benjamin McGuire]

The problem we have is that the proclamation is something of a complex document. I think that there is little doubt that it had its genesis in legal issues. The Church first prepared a document for use in litigation in the Baehr case. This was published by the Church in 1991. The Church was not directly involved in the early parts of the litigation in Hawaii. At the end of 1993, the case went before the state supreme court, and was sent back to the lower courts. Consequently, in 1994, the First Presidency issued a second statement (published to the Church in April). This letter had several things in it that can be connected to the later Proclamation. This letter was used by the Church as a statement on the centrality of marriage for the Church, that it believed that it needed to have to participate in the Hawaii case. They petitioned, and their petition was rejected. In early 1995, we get the Proclamation on the Family. There is little doubt that the legal issues served as the motivation to create the Proclamation - but the differences between the Proclamation and the earlier documents produced suggest that it had taken on a life of its own.

What I have found interesting is that there was absolutely nothing new presented in the Proclamation (that is quite different though from saying that everything in it is was well known). The one thing for me that I had never seen before, and came as something of a surprise when it showed up in my searches was the idea of a gendered pre-existence. As the Proclamation puts it:

Quote

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

And I found this idea published in 1922 by James Talmage:

Quote

We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true, the eternity of sex among the children of God. 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, even as it shall continue after death, in both the disembodied and resurrected states.

https://archive.org/stream/millennialstar8434eng#page/538/mode/2up

(The title is probably a little more suggestive today that it was in 1922). By 1997, the Hawaii case had made its way back through the lower courts and back to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The Church again petitioned to intervene, and attached to the petition a copy of the Proclamation on the Family.

My conclusion is that it was prepared by a committee. The numerous connections between the text of the Proclamation and earlier textual sources suggest this. And part of that process was looking through earlier texts and sources (correlation so to speak) to find earlier statements that matched what the Church wanted in the Proclamation. It's reuse of material here by Talmage is an example of this. At the same time, this also creates some space in this whole question of revelation. I think in general, that we view revelation as a group effort (revelation to the Church that is) in the sense that the leading quorums make their decisions with unanimous consent (that's the principle in D&C 107).

Going back to the speech that was linked to earlier, I agree with Smac97 that it is difficult to reconcile the contents of the speech with the idea that he believed he was one of its primary authors. On top of this, while Scott pointed out that he recalls that Wilkins was involved with U.N. conferences on the family, Wilkins points out in the same speech that:

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.

So it also seems that the chronology is also wrong.

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 ....

But that's just my two cents.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Elder Oaks has either unwittingly or purposely redefined what a revelation is. 

No, he hasn't.

Quote

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. 

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

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

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

Quote

In light of the obvious similarities between certain of the Articles drafted by Joseph Smith and statements made earlier by Oliver Cowdery and Orson Pratt, it is natural to wonder how heavily Joseph Smith relied on those earlier articles of faith. At the same time, due to the many common threads which consistently run throughout all of these early statements, it is equally necessary to recognize that the Prophet himself probably already stood closely behind those earlier formulations. Although we cannot trace the elements of dependency and contribution here, we can reasonably assume that Joseph Smith’s words and thoughts contributed, either directly or indirectly, to the articles of faith written by Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Young, Orson Pratt, and Orson Hyde. The fact that all of these early statements are quite similar to each other shows that the same gospel principles were consistently taught under Joseph’s leadership.

It also follows, of course, that Joseph Smith’s composition of the Articles of Faith was not a matter of spontaneity. There had probably been considerable discussion among Church leaders on points of faith prior to the Wentworth letter. But whether Joseph Smith was following the language of Orson Pratt or Oliver Cowdery, or excerpting Pauline passages from the New Testament 3 (compare A of F 1:4 with Heb. 6:1–4, A of F 1:6 with Eph. 4:11, A of F 1:7 with 1 Cor. 12:22, and A of F 1:13 with 1 Cor. 13:7 and Philip. 4:8), the vision of Joseph Smith was to see clearly the best of what had been said.

The Articles of Faith

Quote

were first published in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons in March 1842 and were later included in the 1851 British Mission pamphlet The Pearl of Great Price, compiled by Elder Franklin D. Richards.  That pamphlet was revised in 1878 and again in 1880. In 1880, a general conference of the Church voted to add the Pearl of Great Price to the standard works of the Church, thus including the thirteen articles. 

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

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

Quote

The gospel plan each family should follow to prepare for eternal life and exaltation is outlined in the Church’s 1995 proclamation, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Its declarations are, of course, visibly different from some current laws, practices, and advocacy of the world in which we live. In our day, the differences most evident are cohabitation without marriage, same-sex marriage, and the raising of children in such relationships. Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

We have witnessed a rapid and increasing public acceptance of cohabitation without marriage and of same-sex marriage. The corresponding media advocacy, education, and even occupational requirements pose difficult challenges for Latter-day Saints. We must try to balance the competing demands of following the gospel law in our personal lives and teachings, even as we seek to show love for all. In doing so we sometimes face, but need not fear, what Isaiah called “the reproach of men.”

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. Two examples are same-sex marriage and cohabitation without marriage. Just 20 years after the family proclamation, the United States Supreme Court authorized same-sex marriage, overturning thousands of years of marriage being limited to a man and a woman. The shocking percentage of United States children born to a mother not married to the father came more gradually: 5 percent in 1960, 32 percent in 1995, and now 40 percent.

...

In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.

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 (D&C 98:12).

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. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”

I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. 

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

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

Quote

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. 

Plainly not true.  See above.

Quote

Elder Oaks has admitted that the proclamation came about by way of committee, this too is a huge announcement. 

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

Quote

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? 

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

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

Quote

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. 

CFR.

Quote

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. 

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

You'll understand our skepticism.

Quote

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. 

Again, CFR.

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post.

Quote

The process that Elder Oaks is describing also comes across as a very man made process,

First, Elder Oaks was a percipient witness.  You weren't.  You are also . . . well, Johnnie Cake.  We all know your generalized sentiments about the LDS Church.  So as between A) your hostile, tendentious assessment based on anonymous sources and triple hearsay, and B) and the published-to-the-world remarks of Elder Oaks, I'll go with the former.

Second, what Elder Oaks is describing also comes across as a very revelatory process.  The quorums of the Church exist for a reason, after all.

Third, I have seen no competent, probative evidence of Bro. Wilkins' involvement.  In fact, his published statements  seem to indicate that he played little or no part at all in the promulgation of the Proclamation.  I am open to evidence, but so far I haven't seen any.  

Fourth, I see no problem at all with a preliminary draft being written by a trusted and faithful member of the Church, who could be counted upon to strive to encapsulate the Church's longstanding doctrines regarding the family.  The Proclamation, after all, was not presented as a newly-minted revelation of previously-unrevealed truths from God.  Instead, it was presented 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."  That doesn't preclude the revelatory guidance described by Elder Oaks.  To the contrary, I think it would make perfect sense for God to provide guidance on such an important document.

Fifth, even if a preliminary draft was started by a someone other than a "prophet, seer and revelator" (such as, say, Bro. Wilkins), the process described by Elder Oaks plainly describes extensive revisions, additions, deletions, and so on by prophets, seers and revelators.  For over a year.  The preliminary draft doesn't really matter at that point.  It's the final draft that is determinative.  And that draft was reviewed and approved by the entirety of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Sixth, the notion that the collaborative effort by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency described by Elder Oaks is somehow a mutually exclusive category from "revelation" is . . . well, weird.  And wrong.  Of course God can provide revelatory guidance to the councils of the Church.  That is their intended purpose, after all.

Quote

while this doesn't comes a surprise to me, I'm quite surprised that believers aren't shocked by this revelation. Revelation by committee? 

Revelation to quorums, presided over and ratified and approved by the First Presidency, including the Presiding High Priest.

This is "shocking" to you?  Have you ever observed how Bishoprics and Ward Councils and Stake Presidencies and High Councils and Area Authorities and the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy and so on, all the way up to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, operate?  The councils of the Church seek out revelation.  All the time.  And they seek it for persons and issues within their stewardship.  All the time.  

Frankly, the only "shocking" thing here is . . . the fact that you are "shocked" at the disclosure of procedures and practices that are widespread and well-known in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Quote

So I know how this board works and I also know that my above claim of first hand witness testimony will be dismissed outright,

Surely you can understand how real and substantial skepticism about triple hearsay involving unknown/anonymous parties and funneled through a very hostile source?  I mean, this is not even a close call.

Quote

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. 

No, that's not on the record.  And it's not "fact."  It's triple hearsay involving unknown/anonymous parties and funneled through a very hostile source.  And what you are saying about Bro. Wilkins is seemingly at odds with . . . what Bro. Wilkins said.

What you are presenting here is, as an evidentiary matter, worthless.  I feel quite comfortable in lending no probative value or weight to what you have said.  None whatsoever.

Quote

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.

What a marvelously squishy and malleable declaration this is.  I am particularly impressed with the weasel words of "in the sense members of the church have come to believe."  That can be twisted . . . well, pretty much any way you want.

For me, I believe that the General Authorities are guided by revelation.  I have no qualms with revelatory processes that involve the councils of the Church.  To the contrary, I cherish them.  I think they can have tremendous value.  I also think the Proclamation is an extremely well-crafted document, and that it achieves its intended purpose of accurately and concisely presenting "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

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And when I read the Proclamation with an awareness of those earlier sources, it screams committee ....

But that's just my two cents.

A few other indicia of committee (council) involvement (bolded/underlined emphases added):

Quote

THE FAMILY

---

A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim...

...

We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

...

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

At no point has the Proclamation been presented as the exclusive "work product" of Gordon B. Hinckley.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few other indicia of committee (council) involvement (bolded/underlined emphases added):

At no point has the Proclamation been presented as the exclusive "work product" of Gordon B. Hinckley.

Thanks,

-Smac

Certainly true... it's been defined as the "work product" of the 15 men who signed it.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Certainly true... it's been defined as the "work product" of the 15 men who signed it.

And their "work" is . . . them acting as "prophets, seers and revelators."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Certainly true... it's been defined as the "work product" of the 15 men who signed it.

Kind of like Elder Scott describes here:

Quote

Some truths regarding how prayers are answered may help you.

Often when we pray for help with a significant matter, Heavenly Father will give us gentle promptings that require us to think, exercise faith, work, at times struggle, then act. It is a step-by-step process that enables us to discern inspired answers.

I have discovered that what sometimes seems an impenetrable barrier to communication is a giant step to be taken in trust. Seldom will you receive a complete response all at once. It will come a piece at a time, in packets, so that you will grow in capacity. As each piece is followed in faith, you will be led to other portions until you have the whole answer. That pattern requires you to exercise faith in our Father’s capacity to respond. While sometimes it’s very hard, it results in significant personal growth.

 

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Continued from the previous post.

First, Elder Oaks was a percipient witness.  You weren't.  You are also . . . well, Johnnie Cake.  We all know your generalized sentiments about the LDS Church.  So as between A) your hostile, tendentious assessment based on anonymous sources and triple hearsay, and B) and the published-to-the-world remarks of Elder Oaks, I'll go with the former.

Second, what Elder Oaks is describing also comes across as a very revelatory process.  The quorums of the Church exist for a reason, after all.

Third, I have seen no competent, probative evidence of Bro. Wilkins' involvement.  In fact, his published statements  seem to indicate that he played little or no part at all in the promulgation of the Proclamation.  I am open to evidence, but so far I haven't seen any.  

Fourth, I see no problem at all with a preliminary draft being written by a trusted and faithful member of the Church, who could be counted upon to strive to encapsulate the Church's longstanding doctrines regarding the family.  The Proclamation, after all, was not presented as a newly-minted revelation of previously-unrevealed truths from God.  Instead, it was presented 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."  That doesn't preclude the revelatory guidance described by Elder Oaks.  To the contrary, I think it would make perfect sense for God to provide guidance on such an important document.

Fifth, even if a preliminary draft was started by a someone other than a "prophet, seer and revelator" (such as, say, Bro. Wilkins), the process described by Elder Oaks plainly describes extensive revisions, additions, deletions, and so on by prophets, seers and revelators.  For over a year.  The preliminary draft doesn't really matter at that point.  It's the final draft that is determinative.  And that draft was reviewed and approved by the entirety of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Sixth, the notion that the collaborative effort by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency described by Elder Oaks is somehow a mutually exclusive category from "revelation" is . . . well, weird.  And wrong.  Of course God can provide revelatory guidance to the councils of the Church.  That is their intended purpose, after all.

Revelation to quorums, presided over and ratified and approved by the First Presidency, including the Presiding High Priest.

This is "shocking" to you?  Have you ever observed how Bishoprics and Ward Councils and Stake Presidencies and High Councils and Area Authorities and the Seventy and the Presidency of the Seventy and so on, all the way up to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, operate?  The councils of the Church seek out revelation.  All the time.  And they seek it for persons and issues within their stewardship.  All the time.  

Frankly, the only "shocking" thing here is . . . the fact that you are "shocked" at the disclosure of procedures and practices that are widespread and well-known in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Surely you can understand how real and substantial skepticism about triple hearsay involving unknown/anonymous parties and funneled through a very hostile source?  I mean, this is not even a close call.

No, that's not on the record.  And it's not "fact."  It's triple hearsay involving unknown/anonymous parties and funneled through a very hostile source.  And what you are saying about Bro. Wilkins is seemingly at odds with . . . what Bro. Wilkins said.

What you are presenting here is, as an evidentiary matter, worthless.  I feel quite comfortable in lending no probative value or weight to what you have said.  None whatsoever.

What a marvelously squishy and malleable declaration this is.  I am particularly impressed with the weasel words of "in the sense members of the church have come to believe."  That can be twisted . . . well, pretty much any way you want.

For me, I believe that the General Authorities are guided by revelation.  I have no qualms with revelatory processes that involve the councils of the Church.  To the contrary, I cherish them.  I think they can have tremendous value.  I also think the Proclamation is an extremely well-crafted document, and that it achieves its intended purpose of accurately and concisely presenting "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

I think it is important to note that the ward, stake and general councils of women (besides ward council) work this way as well.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I find his language to be fairly clear:  the Q12 drafted a document

Actually, take a look at what Elder Oaks said:

Quote

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 (D&C 98:12).

"Subjects were identified..."

"Language was proposed..."

The passive voice allows for involvement of more than the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.  It doesn't require some sort of exclusive authorship, as you suggest ("the Q12 drafted...").

The Proclamation was presented from the beginning as a collaborative document.  

Quote

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.

President Hinckley presented 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."

So he didn't preclude the role of revelation when he presented the Proclamation.  He presumed it.  "Revelation" is the stock in trade of "prophets, seers, and revelators."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think it is important to note that the ward, stake and general councils of women (besides ward council) work this way as well.  

Yep.  

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And their "work" is . . . them acting as "prophets, seers and revelators."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yep... like I said - we've been given some fascinating insights lately into how they fulfill that role.  More than we have in the past, I believe.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

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

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

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... like I said - we've been given some fascinating insights lately into how they fulfill that role.  More than we have in the past, I believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, he hasn't.

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

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

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

The Articles of Faith

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

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

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

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

Plainly not true.  See above.

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

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

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

CFR.

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

You'll understand our skepticism.

Again, CFR.

-Smac

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

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

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, take a look at what Elder Oaks said:

"Subjects were identified..."

"Language was proposed..."

The passive voice allows for involvement of more than the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.  It doesn't require some sort of exclusive authorship, as you suggest ("the Q12 drafted...").

The Proclamation was presented from the beginning as a collaborative document.  

President Hinckley presented 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."

So he didn't preclude the role of revelation when he presented the Proclamation.  He presumed it.  "Revelation" is the stock in trade of "prophets, seers, and revelators."

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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.

What we know is that he did not identify it as revelation.  The document itself does not identify as revelation (it identifies itself as the work of the 15 men who signed it).

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.

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

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

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

Edited October 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Amulek]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

You'll understand our skepticism.

Just pointing out, again, that the hearsay evidence being raised here isn't the only hearsay evidence. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Merrill C. Oaks recounted to me (and others) how much time his brother, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, had spent working on the proclamation and that much of the language present in the final draft was, in fact, written by Elder Oaks. This was related to me while I was serving as a missionary under the direction of Merrill Oaks, who was subsequently called to serve as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. It has been my long-time understanding that Elder Oaks was the one responsible for spearheading this particular project. 

Now, I have been reading the comments by wtrdog both here and (presumably) on Reddit. He sounds like he is making a sincere claim about Brother Wilkins. And while I don't have a problem with the notion that Brother Wilkins may have been a participant in the creation of the proclamation, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that he was really the driving force / principal author / idea man as has been claimed. And I am skeptical that this is how Brother Wilkins, were he still alive to defend himself, would have characterized his involvement in the process.

 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Just pointing out, again, that the hearsay evidence being raised here isn't the only hearsay evidence. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Merrill C. Oaks recounted to me (and others) how much time his brother, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, had spent working on the proclamation and that much of the language present in the final draft was, in fact, written by Elder Oaks.

More hearsay.  

And hearsay that rather contravenes the Wilkins-as-"original-/-primary-author" narrative which wtrdog originally asserted.

And hearsay that, if true, does not convert anything presented in this thread into competent, probative evidence in favor of the The-Proclamation-Was-Purely-Man-Made-And-Not-Revelatory-At-All narrative that the critics are heck-bent on crafting.  Instead, it's hearsay that corroborates and confirms long-held precepts of revelation, stewardship, councils, church governance, etc.  For that reason, I'm less skeptical of it.  There's not much reason to fabricate such a thing.

Quote

This was related to me while I was serving as a missionary under the direction of Merrill Oaks, who was subsequently called to serve as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. It has been my long-time understanding that Elder Oaks was the one responsible for spearheading this particular project. 

Which, if true, is newsworthy or unsettling . . . how, exactly?

I just don't get it.

Quote

Now, I have been reading the comments by wtrdog both here and (presumably) on Reddit. He sounds like he is making a sincere claim about Brother Wilkins. 

Wtrdog's sincerity and five bucks will get me a Starbucks Latte (or hot chocolate).

I am interested in evidence.  

Quote

And while I don't have a problem with the notion that Brother Wilkins may have been a participant in the creation of the proclamation, I have yet to see any convincing evidence that he was really the driving force / principal author / idea man as has been claimed.

Same here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9, 2017 by smac97

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

A corner that it will never wish to escape from. By the way a revelation does not have to be new material. I remember reading a note by one of the 12 that the recent uptick in urging members to keep the Sabbath holy came as a result of revelation. The ingredients of the proclamation are not new revelations and the impetus to put it together may have not been actual revelation. However it is claimed by our apostles and prophets that the form in which it was sent to the world and the actual publication was impelled by revelation. You are free to believe or disbelieve as you please or displease. But you are correct that the leadership of the church has drawn a line in the sand so to speak for the membership to sustain or reject as revelation from God.

Glenn

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

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

[smac97]

On 10/9/2017 at 2:28 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Let’s then at least stick to the facts.

Yes, Carl.  Let's do that.

Let's start with backing off claims that triple hearsay sourced from anonymous parties and through hostile parties somehow establishes "the facts."

Quote

The proclamation is evolving before our very eyes

Not so.  The Proclamation remains unchanged in its wording.  We have received additional details as to how it came to be, but nothing that contravenes prior information.

Quote

and being recast from proclamation to revelation.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Never have been.

The Proclamation was presented as a combined statement by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  It was formally presented to the Church, by the Presiding High Priest, acting in his official capacity, during General Conference.  

It was presumptively "revelatory."  That's what "prophets, seers and revelators" do.

Quote

From a man made perhaps inspired document to a revelation the mind will and voice of God all mighty binding the church to be relegated to the ash heap of societal hinderlsbds.

The Proclamation was presented "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 has been continuously presented in that light since then.

I suspect that the Brethren have heard that some members of the Church have sought to sidestep/ignore the content of the Proclamation because 1) the content is clear, 2) the content reaffirms the Church's position relative to controversial topics, particularly as regarding marriage and homosexual behavior, 3) these folks are casting about for a way to stay in the Church while ignoring or circumventing these precepts, and 4) the revelatory nature of a a doctrinal "declaration and reaffirmation" presented by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve thus warranted further and additional emphasis.

Quote

Elder Oaks has double downed and paired the church into a corner it may never be able to escape from

Oh, nonsense.  The Church's position on marriage and the Law of Chastity have not been changing, and suggestions to the contrary have just been wishful thinking. 

And it's not "a corner."  It's simply the unpleasant duty that prophets, seers and revelators have to declare the will of God as to matters on which His children are being misled.

For me, I find it grimly satisfying to see the Brethren doing . . . what they are doing.  In the words of Evette Carter (see my sig line):

Quote

"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 23, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Apologize for not accepting triple hearsay based on anonymous sources and provided by an interested and hostile party (you)?

Apologizing for being skeptical about something that you said you would also be skeptical about ("{W}ere the circumstances reversed I would be in the lead pushing back on such an undocumented claim made by an anonymous internet poster")?

Why would I do that?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I mentioned, in my earlier post, that there were two things from Oaks' talk that really stood out to me.  Your statement above really leads in to the other:

Oaks' said:  "Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation... is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths..."

He now seems to be wanting to make it a litmus test for "converted" members of the church.  Either accept it as gospel truth or you haven't been property converted.

I am converted.  And I accept the Proclamation as what it is and what it states.  I live by it.  But do I believe that it falls into the category of "gospel truth"?  No.  And I don't see any reason I need to believe that.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, nonsense.  The Church's position on marriage and the Law of Chastity have not been changing, and suggestions to the contrary have just been wishful thinking. 

 

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