Went through the Temple last week...

[_wenglund]

Clearly, Packer is not talking about progression from one species to the next, but rather progression within a species--from spiritual infancy to godhood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here is an important statement from Elder Packer:

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

So Wade, do you believe that modern humans (including you) evolved from lesser lifeforms over the millenia?

While I tend to share Elder Packer's sentiment, my mind is open to other explanations for the origin of man--and this because I don't see this issue as all that pertinent to spiritual progression. Much good has and can be accomplished in the world absent a definitive determination one way or the other. So, why should I care?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Slime... dust... it's the same, except one is dry and the other is wet.

Just what does BKP think God used as building blocks... air?

[_The Dude]

While I tend to share Elder Packer's sentiment, my mind is open to other explanations for the origin of man--and this because I don't see this issue as all that pertinent to spiritual progression. Much good has and can be accomplished in the world absent a definitive determination one way or the other. So, why should I care?

I guess you are right. As long as you pay your tithing, nothing else matters. Have a nice life

[_ludwigm]

This one isn't entirely on-topic, but its current publication in the college-level Institute curriculum warrants a mention:

...
[Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund], in James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4:205–6).
Doctrines of the Gospel p.17

Here's a question: Is the above quote, (a signed statement of the combined First Presidency and currently printed by the Church in a text entitled "Doctrines of the Gospel") actually doctrinal?

You know, the word "doctrine" doesn't mean "doctrine".
See Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie

[_wenglund]

Slime... dust... it's the same, except one is dry and the other is wet.

Just what does BKP think God used as building blocks... air?

If you wish to conclude that you are made of slime, then I won't argue with you. But, either way, it might help you to learn the difference between the theory of evolution and creationism. Doing so may help you to more correctly interpret what BKP said. (Hint: the disagreement is in regards to the process, not the "building blocks").

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

While I tend to share Elder Packer's sentiment, my mind is open to other explanations for the origin of man--and this because I don't see this issue as all that pertinent to spiritual progression. Much good has and can be accomplished in the world absent a definitive determination one way or the other. So, why should I care?

I guess you are right. As long as you pay your tithing, nothing else matters. Have a nice life

That isn't anywhere close to what I was suggesting, but have a nice life as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

While I tend to share Elder Packer's sentiment, my mind is open to other explanations for the origin of man--and this because I don't see this issue as all that pertinent to spiritual progression. Much good has and can be accomplished in the world absent a definitive determination one way or the other. So, why should I care?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you paying attention to what you are saying? Packer said, with emphasis added,

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

What Packer actually said was exceptionally judgmental towards other human beings and was extraordinarily self-certain. His statement logically implies that if you believe in evolution, then it is impossible to have reverence for God. He is adamant and certain about this.

Do you really mean to say that you “tend” to share this sentiment? Do you really mean to say that sharing in this obstinate judgmental attitude towards other human beings (i.e. evolutionists) isn’t pertinent to your spiritual progression?

Let’s reword this into a different example. Say somebody said this: Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that Joseph Smith really possessed a set of gold plates. If somebody adamantly attacked the spirituality of Mormons with to the same degree that Packer attacks the spirituality of evolutionists, do you really think somebody could share this bigoted sentiment with a shrug of their shoulders because it doesn’t pertain to their spiritual growth?

[_Jason Bourne]

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?

And that was even in General Conference. :exclaim

Ah ha! So BC, there you have it. From an apostle of the Lord, at GC, published in the Ensign and on the Church web site. Evolution, at least for humans, is false. Your theory is false as far as BKP is concerned as well as the LDS Church based on YOUR own idea about what is doctrine.

[_Ray A]

Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles.

From personal observations, I believe it's not only possible but there's proof positive.

[_Lamanite]

It also would have been cool if Adam had gone to shake Peter's hand, and Peter said "I'm sorry Adam, but I will not be born for another 4,000 years, so I do not have a body yet, and I would be deceiving you if I tried to shake your hand."

I actually sat down with the Bountiful Temple President and had a pretty cool conversation about that.

I doesn't concern me anymore. The language of the Temple is more symbolic than I first realized. And 5yrs from now, I'm sure I'll say the same thing.

Big UP!

Lamanite