What's wrong with the TRUTH ?

[_Drifting]

Two things Subgenius:

1. What other churches did is entirely beside the point. This is about the church living up to its own standards of honesty.

2. None of those quotes gave the reason for the priesthood ban, which is what I specifically asked for.

SHOCK NEWS!
Just in - 'subgenius' fails to answer question or back up assertion...

[_jo1952]

Jo, I think you have a false concept of how Christians see "church". Christians do not see "the church" as an institution, the way Mormons do, but as a body of believers. As such, Christ's church is found across all Christian denominations which, with the possible exception of one, do not see themselves as having a corner on Christian truth, certainly not that truth which affects salvation. While I have no particular opinion on Packer's statement, the very nature of the "one true church" claim of Mormonism, a top down authoritarian organization as I see it, makes statements by its leaders of more critical import.

Albion,

I AM a Christian.

Blessings,

jo

[_subgenius]

Two things Subgenius:

1. What other churches did is entirely beside the point. This is about the church living up to its own standards of honesty.

which my quotes clearly illustrate they have done. There is no "deceit" as you propose.
Do you have an example of such deceit?

2. None of those quotes gave the reason for the priesthood ban, which is what I specifically asked for.

i specifically answered
If you had read the George A Smith quote you would have read this,
"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"

this seems a pretty clear reason )as well as McConkie)...what are you unclear on when it comes to the priesthood ban? Is is that a President and Prophet of the church gave a concise and clear reason for the ban? because that seems to be your argument.

and p.s.
still waiting for your support that it is well-known that Packer's position on the "truth" is consistent with the hearsay reference of "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys".

[_Drifting]

As to the question of the now-discarded ban on blacks in the priesthood, the church said: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago."

SLTribune March 2012.

[_Molok]

Subgenius,

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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." - George A Smith 1949

Unless this quote has been reprinted since 1949, it is not official doctrine of the church. I asked for a quote from an official LDS source (preferably with a link) giving the reason for the priesthood ban. Please also note

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year."

This quote tells us that we should disregard the first quote, without giving the "real" reason for the ban. I mean, heck, we both know that earlier prophets were very open about the reason for the ban, but that has all been brushed under the rug by the church since 1978. This is the deceit that I'm talking about.

[_Molok]

still waiting for your support that it is well-known that Packer's position on the "truth" is consistent with the hearsay reference of "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys".

That's not the whole quote you posted earlier, now you're just trimming it to make your case stronger. "Some things that are true are not very useful" does not have the identical meaning of "the truth is not uplifting; it destroys" but it is close enough that it shouldn't be completely unbelievable that both quotes could come from the same person.

[_subgenius]

still waiting for your support that it is well-known that Packer's position on the "truth" is consistent with the hearsay reference of "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys".

That's not the whole quote you posted earlier, now you're just trimming it to make your case stronger. "Some things that are true are not very useful" does not have the identical meaning of "the truth is not uplifting; it destroys" but it is close enough that it shouldn't be completely unbelievable that both quotes could come from the same person.

that was the specific emphasis i noted...and it is the specific to the OP...either that statement is consistent with Packer's record or it is not?

as for trimming, the OP trimmed quite enough for all of us, but your criticism is lacking on that point, which i hope was just an oversight. After all the quote is clearly used to buttress the title of this thread, implying that Elder Packer finds something wrong with the truth, and what he finds wrong is that the truth is not uplifting; it destroys...that statement and inference is the cause of the OP not mine.

As for "not very useful" being equal to "not uplifting, it destroys", i believe even the most cynical mind would have trouble connecting those two dots.
If "close enough" is appropriate then duly noted for future reference.

The truth is that the OP is relying on hearsay to condemn one man and thus condemn an entire church...but i suppose with you, that is "close enough".

[_Molok]

Here's the first quote

“I have a hard time with historians... because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.”

And here's another quote from Packer

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it was worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

In both of these quotes Packer is expressing disdain for Historians wanting to tell the truth of church history, because it isn't uplifting. If Quinn had wanted to use quotes of Packer scoffing at the truth of church history, he didn't need to make one up, so there's no particular reason to assume that he did, unless you have evidence that suggests otherwise?