A Recent Speech by Elder Packer
by Jared* on May 15th, 2006Elder Packer made some remarks directed against evolution in a recent Women’s Conference address (pdf). Most of the pertinent comments were not new, rather they were taken from two former talks, “The Pattern of our Parentage” and “Little Children.” I have previously posted a collection of his statements, with some of my analysis.
Elder Packer’s version of evolution is not one that any biologist would recognize.
(hat tip to a commenter at NDBF)
Thank you, Jared, for posting this information. I would like to just add that (for me) there are at least four items of interest in President Packer’s recent talk as it relates to evolution. First, the absence if a disclaimer in 2006 as opposed to 1988. Second, the consistency of his “origin of man” position over time. Third, a New Testament verse is quoted in an anti-evolution context. Fourth, at least six comments made on my blog during the past year were probably invalidated by President Packer’s recent talk.
I’ve posted a much longer and more detailed version of this comment here, if anyone is interested.
Gary,
In regard to your points:
1. I guess we’ll disagree on what the absence of a disclaimer means. Anyway, the real point of his talk was the importance of family–children and motherhood. To the extent that he sees evolution as the boogey-man of the family, rightly or wrongly, it’s not all that surprising that he would touch on it given prior statements.
2. Yes, this does help establish the consistency of his views.
3. I don’t see why the NT verse is important at all.
4. I’m glad to see that none of the statements were mine.
Last summer, in Clark Goble’s article, Hinckley on Evolution, there was a flap about the disclaimer in Elder Packer’s 1988 talk (see comments #139, #140, #142, #144, and #145). Regarding Matt. 7:16, it just seems noteworthy that President Packer (for the second time) has used the verse in an anti-evolution context.
I’m surprised by Elder Packer’s use of Matt 7:16. I have never heard that verse used in that context. In fact, if someone had told me that that verse was used in relation to evolution, I would have guessed that it was pro-evolution; viz. to emphasize the broad scientific progress and discovery made through applying evolutionary theory.
In addition to the disclaimer being replaced by verbiage about the Twelve setting things in order under the First Presidency as pointed out by Gary, I think the fact that it is copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. is significant. This to me entitles it to the status of “doctrine.”
Face it, the guy is a false prophet and a half who can’t resist misusing his position to promote personal opinion. Sadly, he’s become our Pat Robertson or Harold Camping. Jesus warned us about people like this. They are not to be taking seriously.
I have to disagree with the copyright being held by the Church being tantamount to establishing the doctrine of the Church. It is a speech after all - there is no evidence it went through Correlation, though I do not see much in it that the other leaders of the Church would consider to be particularly problematic. Not nearly outspoken enough for that, with one possible exception.
I imagine they might have a problem with the implication that a *single* Apostle has any sort of mandate to set the church in order. That is the mandate of the Quorum as a whole - the rule of the Quorum is consensus - no consensus, no revelation, no mandate (cf. D&C 107).
If the Church really wanted to establish something as doctrine, it would go through Correlation or the equivalent higher level process, and be published either as a formal declaration, or in books or manuals bearing the mark of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Conference talks, Ensign articles, etc. do not count except to the degree we can be reasonably certain that the leaders of the Church are speaking with one voice - any discordant note has no credibility as the doctrine of the Church. That is the whole reason for Correlation in the first place.
I might add that one of the reasons why “Intellectual Reserve” is called that is precisely so that people do not make that kind of conclusion with regard to all sorts of secondary materials Copyrights used to be held by the “Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” - now we have Intellectual Reserve, Property Reserve, Deseret Management, and so on.
As far as I know, all works to be taken moderately authoritatively should be clearly marked as “Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”.
Even that doesn’t make something canonical - to be accepted as scripture, a general conference vote must be taken. This last happened in or about 1979 with regard to some additions to the Pearl of Great Price.
Of course, a proclamation issued in the name of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve is the next closest thing - adequate to establish the doctrine, if not the canon of the Church.
Non-canonical doctrines can lose their doctrinal status by simple neglect. That is pretty much the difference between doctrine and canon.
So I would rank doctrinal stability in the following order:
1. The scriptural canon
2. Proclamations of the FP and Q12
3. First Presidency statements (rare these days)
4. Church published books and manuals
5. General conference talks, as published
6. Ensign articles by Church authorities
7. Other leadership talks and speeches
Pretty much anything in categories 3-7 can lose informal doctrinal status by neglect, typically after thirty years or so, if not reaffirmed.
Also pretty much only categories 1-4 have any solid claim to be the doctrine of the Church (i.e. these days all go through Correlation). Categories 5,6,7 generally don’t, although there is a minor editorial process for categories 5 and 6. Category 7 isn’t even edited.
Mark, note that I don’t equate ‘doctrine’ and ‘truth.’ For me ‘doctrine’ is simply that which is acceptable for official discourse—Church meetings and so on. So all I’m saying is that I think the fact that Elder Packer’s talk is copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve (which to me constitutes being published by the Church) makes it fair game for people to use its ideas in lessons and talks.
Within that which is suitable for official discourse, there are of course degrees of authoritativeness, and I largely agree with your description of that.
By the way Mark, how do you know the motivation for the name “Intellectual Reserve”? Are you just guessing? Also, some publications have approval dates; how can we know what this means, whether it be approval by Correlation or by the FP and Q12? (Presumably they are not all that different, however.)
Christian, I agree that these days any talk an Apostle gives in a public, Church sponsored forum is fair game for quotation in a lesson or talk. My point is that doesn’t make anything he says the doctrine of the Church. The same follows to a degree even with General Conference talks. Occasionally a controversy will arise where you can see the diversity of opinion on a subject right there in General Conference.
*Doctrine* by itself simply means formal precept or teaching. The question is what has proper claim to be the doctrine *of the Church*. There is considerable history on this subject - for example the First Presidency and Q12 released a statement in 1865 that said that even Apostles (Orson Pratt in this case) were supposed to submit anything that made a pretense of being doctrinal to the leaders of the Church for review and endorsement first. A hundred years later you had the controversy with the book Mormon Doctrine, which despite the fine print disclaimers is not Mormon Doctrine at all, but rather McConkie Doctrine - strictly speaking there is no such thing as Mormon doctrine, just Mormon theology. What there is the doctrine of the Church.
So while all doctrine should attempt to represent the truth, I agree completely the two terms have fundamentally different senses. Church doctrine is a function of authority. Truth is a function of reality.
Now some of my knowledge on the processes and organization comes from talking to members who spent much of their careers working at Church headquarters. For example, Property Reserve used to be known (in part) as Zion’s Securities - well the problem would be the whenever the nature of the relationship between the organization and the Church became known, people would demand all sorts of unusual or special treatment and it was a problem.
Similar problems with regard to “Zion’s Bank” - though a publically traded corporation, had the Church (which maintains some significant holding) recommending a name change. This almost happened a few years back with a ZFNB initiated merger with First Security Bank that was to adopt the name of the latter.
Now as the Church holds various physical properties, notably in downtown Salt Lake City - they recently bought Crossroads mall and are now rebuilding most of the block, it also owns various intellectual ‘properties’ and most of them do not have claim to be the doctrine of the Church - everything from policies and procedures manuals, internal work products, drafts of speeches, memos, web sites, and so on. So since many members have a lack of sophistication on this matter, virtually everything gets copyrighted these days by Intellectual Reserve, the same way physical ownership is held by Property Reserve.
And then when something needs to be published as the official doctrine of the Church - it goes through the Correlation process - not necessarily the Correlation department, but the process. As has been described in several publically available sources, the principle of Correlation is apostolic consensus. This process is exercised every time the Quorum of the Twelve meets - they will very often delay any decision or doctrinal pronouncement until all are agreed.
Now with regard to documents for publication, this process gets rather involved, so different levels of review are applied. A high level of review is applied to manuals that are published in the name of the Church, and a considerably lesser level of review (editing mostly) to transcripts of speeches and talks. I seriously doubt that anyone at the Apostle level submits talks for pre-emptive review.