Went through the Temple last week...

[_Droopy]

More denial. The Church's intrusion into Prop 8 will ensure one thing, BC,

Take a snapshot of this. Get it developed and look at it carefully. The Church's intrusion into prop 8. Yes, Ray has become the standard, formatted cookie cutter leftist for whom free speech and participation in the politics and governance of one's own country is for him and those who believe as he does, but for no one else.

What he has really said here, it should be observed, is that Mormons as a people "intruded" into the political and cultural life of their country by taking a side in the prop 8 debate. Ray clearly thinks that conservatives/Christians/Mormons have no business in such participation because they have incorrect thoughts and attitudes on such matters. Liberals like Ray participate in politics. Mormons and other conservatives intrude into the political process. Organizations like the ACLU, Act Up, Queer Nation, and other pro homosexual organizations participate in the political process. Churches intrude.

and that is that there will not be a Mormon president of the United States for another 50 years! Do you really think Americans are that stoopid? They have seen how your church can influence politics, and they will shun a Mormon president just like they shunned Brigham Young and his Utah theocracy.

Have you done your homework and looked at the poll numbers regarding how many Americans support Gay marriage, including across liberal/conservative lines?

No, of course you haven't. The very idea that a majority of Americans would shun a Mormon running for President because he or his Church did not support homosexual marriage is utterly preposterous, as only a small minority of citizens actually supports such a measure, and that minority is not going to be voting for a Mormon for president in any event.

In a way, Prop 8 was a good thing, because it will wake up the American people to what moral, social, and political dictators Mormons can be, and that's something none of us wants in America.

Ahh, there it is again. LDS participation in politics (which one would...uh...I seem to remember something in the Constitution about freedom of speech...silly me, I must be imagining it) is now, not participation, but political dictatorship.

Don't forget to renew your MoveOn.org membership this new year Ray.

Kiss goodbye to your hopes of a Mormon president until at least 2058.

Who cares? I wouldn't want to see a good Latter Day Saint corrupted by the culture of Washington and the temptations of power. We don't need a Mormon president. All we need is a decent, intelligent man or woman who takes the Constitution seriously and wants to get government out of our way and off our backs. We'll take care of the rest quite on our own.

[_Ray A]

Have you done your homework and looked at the poll numbers regarding how many Americans support Gay marriage, including across liberal/conservative lines?

Have you done your homework and looked at history and historical trends? Ten years ago states and countries that banned homosexual relations now have gay unions and marriages.

Where do you think this is going? Maybe the same way as the once-held idea that Blacks were "fence sitters"?

[_Droopy]

What you mean is that when conversation and debate doesn't go your way you're not happy.

No, he means the people like you who usually dominate forums such as this, set the tone of debate, and corrupt every discussion in which they participate. It is why so little real good faith, civil debate is possible in these boards.

Go to Exmormon.org, or RFM, to see what the exmo world is really like when its in its element. The few apologists who hang on here and hold down the fort are the only reason this place doesn't deteriorate into a full blown tin foil hat anti-Mormon conspiracy/hate site.

You were not like this not so long ago Ray. I don't know what's happened, but it does you little credit.

[_Ray A]

Go to Exmormon.org, or RFM, to see what the exmo world is really like when its in its element.

I've been on all of them and probably know far more than you about them. I don't post on any of them. You are the other side of the coin, but you will never see it. Maybe one day you'll work out why I no longer post on either Pro-Mormon forums or ex-Mormon forums. Neither suits my tastes.

[_Droopy]

Have you done your homework and looked at history and historical trends? Ten years ago states and countries that banned homosexual relations now have gay unions and marriages.

Yes Ray, its all inevitable, and the Reich will last a thousand years.

Where do you think this is going? Maybe the same way as the once-held idea that Blacks were "fence sitters"?

The concept taught was that they were less valiant spirits. The "fence sitters" idea is LDS folk doctrine, and neither were ever official LDS doctrine.

[_Ray A]

The concept taught was that they were less valiant spirits. The "fence sitters" idea is LDS folk doctrine, and neither were ever official LDS doctrine.

Once again you show your complete and total ignorance:

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another DOCTRINE of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency.

Now comes the spin.....courtesy of Droopy.

[_Analytics]

I think you are reading way, way too much into Elder Packer's brief comment and, ironically, harshly judging him. But, it's not a point that I see much value quibbling over.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't read too much into this, but surely, no one with reverence for God would think I harshly judged Elder Packer.

[_cinepro]

I think you are reading way, way too much into Elder Packer's brief comment and, ironically, harshly judging him. But, it's not a point that I see much value quibbling over.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry Wade, but it wasn't a "brief comment".

Again, the entire talk is here. It is called "The Pattern of our Parentage", and the entire theme of the talk is that the theory of Universal Common Descent is false. I had merely highlighted that part that deals specifically with the phrase "after their own kind".

It is situations like this where the fragility of apologetic arguments are best seen. Here we have a living Apostle of Jesus Christ (and our most likely next prophet) standing in General Conference and declaring that the Theory of Universal Common descent is false.

I also don't see any "judging" of Elder Packer. He stood in conference and plainly expounded on the scriptures and the doctrine of the Church. Sadly, his expounding runs contradictory to modern scientific thought on the origin of physical man, so that puts scientifically inclined people who also want to believe in LDS doctrine into a pickle.

One option is to diminish the scope and veracity of Elder Packer's remarks (by calling them "brief comments"?), or try and convince yourself he didn't mean exactly what he said. Or you could accept what he said, but argue that apostles speaking in conference aren't accurately representing the doctrine of the Church. Or, you can argue that Elder Packer was just mistaken, but according to his talk, this would make you irreverent towards God and dumber than a 4-year-old.

Either way you slice it, sometimes it just plain sucks to be a scientifically inclined Mormon.

[_wenglund]

Sorry Wade, but it wasn't a "brief comment".

The quoted portion that I was speaking to was. But, again, I am not inclined to pick at this nit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Here we have a living Apostle of Jesus Christ (and our most likely next prophet) standing in General Conference and declaring that the Theory of Universal Common descent is false.

God could not be so cruel. That would be a trial of faith I'm not sure I could survive.