The double speak by LDSinc's profits is no more evident than on evolution and the nature of God. They are perfectly fine with the evolution of homo sapiens being taught and advocated by science depts at BYU campuses.

And yet the first presidency has taken a firm stand against it...
http://lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."


Also, from that link, is an interesting statement:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. "

But I also recall Gordon B. Hinckley telling reporters that we don't teach that.

So it seems to me, the First Presidency is comfortable with ambiguity, and even on essential doctrines, such as the creation and nature of God. Joseph Smith had a difficult time nailing the nature of God, which varied in his first vision.

Thanks Jesus Smith. That first presidency statement was in 1909, one hundred and two years ago. They should get a revelation to update us.

Hoggle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Jesus Smith. That first presidency
> statement was in 1909, one hundred and two years
> ago. They should get a revelation to update us.

But truth is truth everlasting. We are duty bound to accept this, not the theories of men--no matter how much evidence these men have.

snark.

The result of the 1909 Origins of Man way have resulted from the incredible arguments B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith which would happen during meetings concerning Evolution. Roberts was a believer in Evolution while Smith was not. (Some have questioned Robert's true belief toward the end of his life...)

I do remember Pres. Hinkley, during conference, stating that the "Church": 'Took no official stance on Evolution' which did me a favor at the time since I was teaching Gospel Doctrine and could use that if the topic beame a "bash" science fest.

If any have read Zechariah Sitchen than you know that man is the literal offspring of the Enki, the alien Lord of the Earth. This belief indicates we are off spring of Alien beings, not a Supreme being...

Believe what you want, but natural selection explains a lot about us...

tensolator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do remember Pres. Hinkley, during conference,
> stating that the "Church": 'Took no official
> stance on Evolution' which did me a favor at the
> time since I was teaching Gospel Doctrine and
> could use that if the topic beame a "bash" science
> fest.

Exactly my point. One first presidency declares with soberness that this is doctrinal and official: we are duty bound to accept that Adam did not evolve.

Then another first presidency says: I don't know that we teach that--there's no official stance--(burning, shredding the 1909 declaration).

The double speak is loud and clear.