Went through the Temple last week...

[_cinepro]

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-

I agree we shouldn't "pick at nits".

How about we discuss the entire talk? Do you believe modern humans evolved from lesser life forms over time?

[_The Dude]

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

When I was at BYU I worked closely with a biology professor who had a chance to have a personal discussion with Elder Packer about his views on evolution. The professor explained the most recent molecular evidence for common descent as well as the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and speciation. Packer seemed to really get it. He thought it was all very convincing and even beautiful (this professor was a very talented teacher). So the BYU professor asked Packer why he gives the kind of talks he does, for example the one cinepro quoted in this thread. Packer said it was because people will act like animals and justify sinful behavior if they believe they evolved from animals.

[_silentkid]

Packer said it was because people will act like animals and justify sinful behavior if they believe they evolved from animals.

Because people didn't act like animals before Darwin. Good call.

[_Seven]

"Dr. Shades"
William Law had problems with the King Follett discourse (and polygamy), not David Whitmer. David Whitmer was expelled during the Missouri period; he was never in Nauvoo wherein the King Follet discourse was given.

In David Whitmer's "address to all believers in Christ", he spends a great deal of time discussing his problems with Joseph Smith's polygamy, and condemns the LDS practice of it.

Did you mean he left the church before he had knowledge of the secret polygamy and teachings taking place?
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

The doctrine of polygamy was not introduced until about fourteen years after the church was established; but other doctrines of error were introduced earlier than this. I left the body in June, 1838, being five years before polygamy was introduced.

THE CHURCH OF Christ holds to the original doctrine and order that was first established upon the teachings of Christ in the written word, in 1829, when the Lord set his hand the second time to establish the true gospel upon the earth and recover his people, which is in fulfillment of the prophecies in the Bible. We denounce the doctrine of polygamy and spiritual wifeism. It is a great evil, shocking to the moral sense, and the more so because practiced in the name of Religion. It is of man and not of God, and is especially forbidden in the Book of Mormon itself in these words. "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord....

[_wenglund]

How about we discuss the entire talk?

If you can demonstrate that in so doing it will help both of us in our goal to become the very best people possible and grow in joy and love, then I would be pleased to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

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.

No spin, I would just like you to elucidate for me in what manner this was official doctrine, binding upon all members as a matter of core belief, and where is the "fence sitter" idea you claimed existed?

To be honest, even if one could show that LDS as a people were expected to believe this idea as a matter of fundamental doctrine, it really wouldn't matter. One thing is true here which is a matter of settled doctrine: our mortal lives here, including time, place, and circumstance of birth, including the lineage through which we come, have been conditioned by our development in our First Estate, just as our development here will condition the nature of our existence and opportunities after this life.

I have no more problem accepting the concept of spirits entering mortality through black lineage doing so for specific purposes, some centered in the dynamics of the pre-existent state, then I do accepting my own coming into this world under less than pristine conditions and subject to some very real inherent limitations.

But continue in your holier-than-thou moral posturing against the Lord's anointed Ray.

You will, no doubt, have your reward.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

No spin, I would just like you to elucidate for me in what manner this was official doctrine, binding upon all members as a matter of core belief, and where is the "fence sitter" idea you claimed existed?

Here, let me try, using the same 1949 FP letter but my own emphasis:

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.

The "fence-sitter" idea is in the third paragraph dicussion of "another doctrine," which is used to explain the Church's position on denying the priesthood to black males.

[_Droopy]

Nice try {Moderator edit by harmony: no personal attacks}, but no go.

The Church has clear and concise means by and through which official doctrine, doctrine which defines us as a people and in relation to which our salvation is understood be be directly related, is manifest to the people and clarified as to its status as core, settled doctrine.

A private correspondence does not fulfill those conditions. The fact still remains that this idea (as well as Adam-God and other concepts), were never pubically put before the LDS people in an official capacity and through the means in place in Priesthood government through which any such concepts can be understood and accepted by the general membership as official doctrine.

Now, let's dispose of the "fence sitters" {Moderator edit by harmony: no personal attacks}. There were no neutrals in heaven. That is church doctrine. Anyone here in mortality, or who has ever been in mortality, chose the plan of Jesus Christ, Period. The original idea re black people was that they were less valiant in the pre-existence and hence, warranted some limitations in their opportunities here (one must ask what those who became Jews did up there to get the ax, or Chinese...) Whether or not one wants to argue that this was ever anything more than an official theological explanation for the Priesthood ban, the fence sitter concept is folk doctrine and wasn't even a part of the original conceptualization of the issue.

[_harmony]

Packer said it was because people will act like animals and justify sinful behavior if they believe they evolved from animals.

He has such faith in the members.

Obviously animals get quite a few things right: they eat food that is healthy for them, they reproduce and usually care for their young, they live as suits them best (herds, pods, etc., or even alone), they exercise, some of them mate for life.

So... how is it bad to act like animals? We are animals.

[_cinepro]

Nice try but no go.

The Church has clear and concise means by and through which official doctrine, doctrine which defines us as a people and in relation to which our salvation is understood be be directly related, is manifest to the people and clarified as to its status as core, settled doctrine.

Can you please share your understanding for this "clear and concise means"? Please include references and examples from official sources to support your claims, since some church members seem to invent their own definitions out of thin air.

A private correspondence does not fulfill those conditions.

Until you outline these conditions, we'll never know, will we?

The fact still remains that this idea (as well as Adam-God and other concepts), were never pubically put before the LDS people in an official capacity and through the means in place in Priesthood government through which any such concepts can be understood and accepted by the general membership as official doctrine.

If the bolded word isn't a spelling error, I'm definitely going to need some clarification on your understanding of how doctrine is made official.

Now, let's dispose of the "fence sitters" {Moderator edit by harmony: no personal attacks}. There were no neutrals in heaven. That is church doctrine. Anyone here in mortality, or who has ever been in mortality, chose the plan of Jesus Christ, Period. The original idea re black people was that they were less valiant in the pre-existence and hence, warranted some limitations in their opportunities here (one must ask what those who became Jews did up there to get the ax, or Chinese...) Whether or not one wants to argue that this was ever anything more than an official theological explanation for the Priesthood ban, the fence sitter concept is folk doctrine and wasn't even a part of the original conceptualization of the issue.

I would be interested to know what your understanding of the "original conceptualization of the issue" is. Maybe you can start a new thread.