Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I didn't dodge it, Arch. You and Lebowski need to quit accusing me of that simply because I don't answer according to your preconceived expectations.

First, SoonerCoug is not Lorenzo Snow. I think some special allowance has to be made for that. Second, Snow didn't go on some Internet message board and blab about how God had revealed it to him. He kept it to himself.

Your "no Church doctrine currently states" is EXACTLY the problem. He is ostensibly receiving additional revelation beyond what is currently revealed. You're making my case for me.

And why should you make an exception for Lorenzo Snow, who went to his file leader?

The analysis still works.

A person receives information in addition to Church doctrine but not in contradiction of Church doctrine. He received for his own benefit.

We are told, are we not, that God wishes all to be prophets? And what is one of the roles of prophets? To receive information that is otherwise not revealed.

You are confusing priesthood authority to act on behalf of others with the right of revelation.

Even the Church acknowledges that Mohammed acted as a prophet, but he did not have priesthood authority.

Soonercoug can receive and should seek to receive additional revelation on the OT, but he will have no authority to extend its interpretation for anybody else.

My case is clear. You are simply unwilling to admit your error.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Fascinating. Perhaps Krakauer wasn't so far off the mark after all.

Let me pose another scenario to you: Suppose you were living in Cedar City in the 19th century and your stake president came to you and told you that you were required to kill all men, women, and children in a certain wagon train. Suppose that he indicated that this command was in keeping with his understanding of a directive from the prophet. Keep in mind that this person is your direct ecclesiastical leader and he is stressing the utmost urgency. Further suppose that he drew a parallel to similar God-sanctioned killings in the Old Testament. How would you respond?

And don't give me that "absurd hypothetical" dodge. Unlike your slavery example, my scenario is real.



Yes, he did. Sadly, it turned out that it was not simply a test in several other cases. And the husbands weren't typically consulted.



I am thinking that in the Cedar City example, the veracity of that particular scripture would suddenly take on critical importance for all of the items you listed. Life and death, in fact.

LOL, I was wondering how long you'd wait before you brought up Mountain Meadows. I was mistaken before: this is the Adolf Hitler of LDS discussions. This may be the stupidest thing you've ever said to me, ever. And that's saying something.

I suppose for a place as dense as Cougarguard, I have to actually spell out the fact that I wouldn't have participated.

What's next for you ... postulating how long before Mitt Romney is controlled from Salt Lake?

Originally Posted by Archaea

And why should you make an exception for Lorenzo Snow, who went to his file leader?

The analysis still works.

A person receives information in addition to Church doctrine but not in contradiction of Church doctrine. He received for his own benefit.

We are told, are we not, that God wishes all to be prophets? And what is one of the roles of prophets? To receive information that is otherwise not revealed.

You are confusing priesthood authority to act on behalf of others with the right of revelation.

Even the Church acknowledges that Mohammed acted as a prophet, but he did not have priesthood authority.

Soonercoug can receive and should seek to receive additional revelation on the OT, but he will have no authority to extend its interpretation for anybody else.

My case is clear. You are simply unwilling to admit your error.

I don't think it "still works" at all--on the contrary, I think it's a huge distinction.

I don't think that's what Moses meant, but whatever. I'm getting tired of repeating myself; my case is made, there will likely be no mind-changing on either side. Why don't you put "Tex is wrong" on a piece of posterboard and stick it to your bedroom mirror. That might make you feel better.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think it "still works" at all--on the contrary, I think it's a huge distinction.

I don't think that's what Moses meant, but whatever. I'm getting tired of repeating myself; my case is made, there will likely be no mind-changing on either side. Why don't you put "Tex is wrong" on a piece of posterboard and stick it to your bedroom mirror. That might make you feel better.

Tex = wrong, but Tex is wrong is somewhat redundant, don't you think?

What did Moses mean when he wished all could be prophets?

And btw, I believe modern prophets have echoed that sentiment.

Why would God call a non-priesthood holding prophet?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

LOL, I was wondering how long you'd wait before you brought up Mountain Meadows. I was mistaken before: this is the Adolf Hitler of LDS discussions. This may be the stupidest thing you've ever said to me, ever. And that's saying something.

This from a guy who has been defending the concept of God-sanctioned genocide for days, who has ridiculed us for 2007-style squeamishness, and who just stated that he would practice slavery if the prophet asked him to (without stating any qualifications). And yet I am stupid for posing such an obvious question? Remarkable.

I wonder what would cause you to think and react differently in that situation (with no benefit of hindsight like we now have)? Keep in mind that most of the people who got that command obeyed it. I think you have demonstrated a philosophy and simple-mindedness that would put you squarely in the obedience group. I have a hard time imagining you being one of the objectors in that scenario.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex = wrong, but Tex is wrong is somewhat redundant, don't you think?

What did Moses mean when he wished all could be prophets?

And btw, I believe modern prophets have echoed that sentiment.

Why would God call a non-priesthood holding prophet?

I think Num 11:29 makes it pretty clear what he meant.

You'll have to provide more context on the Mohammad statement.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This from a guy who has been defending the concept of God-sanctioned genocide for days, who has ridiculed us for 2007-style squeamishness, and who just stated that he would practice slavery if the prophet asked him to (without stating any qualifications). And yet I am stupid for posing such an obvious question? Remarkable.

Sigh. I did not say that last. This:

Originally Posted by Tex

So you can take that as a "yes."

was a response to this:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I would look for personal revelation to confirm that. And I would keep open the possibility that he is out of line. Would you?

So, yes, you are stupid for "posing." You can't even recognize when I answer your own inane questions.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I wonder what would cause you to think and react differently in that situation (with no benefit of hindsight like we now have)? Keep in mind that most of the people who got that command obeyed it. I think you have demonstrated a philosophy and simple-mindedness that would put you squarely in the obedience group. I have a hard time imagining you being one of the objectors in that scenario.

Well, you can stop the wondering, Leb. I'm just an evil, mindless, robotic simpleton, waiting eagerly for my orders from my Stake President to massacre the nearest bystander.

And you accuse me of being binary. Ha.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think Num 11:29 makes it pretty clear what he meant.

If that is the typical chicken shit answer.

I've told you what I think it means, and then I ask for your opinion, and you give me NO opinion, only to state Archaea is wrong, but it's clear.

Do you ever answer a question, or are you so scared to admit you're wrong?

What do you think Num: 11:29 means? It's not clear if we disagree.

Surprisingly BRM had something to say about this scripture.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOr...____&hideNav=1

New Era » 1980 » June

How to Get Personal Revelation

by Elder Bruce R. McConkie

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If that is the typical chicken shit answer.

I've told you what I think it means, and then I ask for your opinion, and you give me NO opinion, only to state Archaea is wrong, but it's clear.

Do you ever answer a question, or are you so scared to admit you're wrong?

What do you think Num: 11:29 means? It's not clear if we disagree.

Oh stop hyperventilating.

The spirit of prophecy. The gift of the Holy Ghost. Righteous communion with God. The privilege of receiving revelation and inspiration. The testimony of Jesus.

From the McConkie talk you quoted: "We talk about latter-day prophets; we think in terms of prophets who tell the future destiny of the Church and the world. But, in addition to that, the fact is that every person should be a prophet for himself and in his own concerns and in his own affairs. It was Moses who said, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them”"

I've said no different, although on Cougarguard I guess that means I'm a heretic.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh stop hyperventilating.

The spirit of prophecy. The gift of the Holy Ghost. Righteous communion with God. The privilege of receiving revelation and inspiration. The testimony of Jesus.

From the McConkie talk you quoted: "We talk about latter-day prophets; we think in terms of prophets who tell the future destiny of the Church and the world. But, in addition to that, the fact is that every person should be a prophet for himself and in his own concerns and in his own affairs. It was Moses who said, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them”"

I've said no different, although on Cougarguard I guess that means I'm a heretic.

A prophet in his own concerns.

So Soonercoug is a prophet in his own personal interpretation of scripture regarding genocide, yet you who claim no personal revelation on the matter claim he is wrong. Is that logical?

I still didn't read your opinion, I got BRM's opinion which I already knew, as well as the opinion of Dallin Oaks which is used for a slightly different context.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sigh. I did not say that last. This:

was a response to this:

So, yes, you are stupid for "posing." You can't even recognize when I answer your own inane questions.

I apologize for not understanding your vague answer. Given the context of how you posed the original slavery question in the other thread, and given the topic of debate in the other thread, I think you are being entirely disingenuous here. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's move on.

I am assuming that when you pray about the truthfulness of the slavery command, you are going to allow for the possibility of a negative answer. I.e., that the prophet could be wrong. Otherwise, what's the point of praying, eh? Just start buying slaves and save yourself the bother. But if you allow for the fact that the prophet could be wrong, explain to me why it would be OK in that circumstance to receive personal revelation that the prophet is wrong, but not OK to receive personal revelation that OT-genocide is wrong, when there is only an implicit sanction by the prophet in that case.

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, you can stop the wondering, Leb. I'm just an evil, mindless, robotic simpleton, waiting eagerly for my orders from my Stake President to massacre the nearest bystander.

And you accuse me of being binary. Ha.

Cut the theatrics, Tex. It doesn't help your case.

As you probably know, most of the members in Cedar City obeyed the stake president. I think it's safe to say that most of us, if we were placed in the same circumstances with the same set of experiences, would probably have done the same thing. That is why so much blame should be placed on the leaders who made the horrendous decision that so tragically affected so many lives. I have often wondered what I would have done in that case. I would like to think that I would have objected, but who knows? Yet given the nature of your arguments over the past few days and on the previous debate over prophetic infallibility, I find it remarkable that you would claim to be one of the very few that would tell the Stake President to stick it.

[Tex]

These are two difficult hypotheticals, and it's really hard to know for sure how I'd react in either case without actually being there. The culture and times of the 19th century church (and America ... er, Mexico) were vastly different than they are today. They were a theocracy, and we aren't. And, the likelihood of Hinckley reinstating polygamy (or slavery) is asymptotically near zero.

That said, here is my impression of how I'd react. If you were to take 21st century Tex and his 21st century stake president, and put him in Cedar City and ask him to kill those people, he would likely be extremely skeptical. In fact, I'm not sure there's any way at all my SP could possibly persuade me in that manner.

Second, if Hinckley were to do as my hypothetical suggests, I'm quite sure it would create a spiritual crisis the likes of which I have never yet experienced. I cannot begin to fathom the kind of prayer I would then engage in, if that were asked of me. My willingness to conform would largely depend upon the strength of my own spiritual confirmation of that command.

These are imperfect analogies, by the way. I react differently to my stake president than I do the prophet. I also would react differently to a killing command than to a slavery command.

But in the end, and to conclude my part in this wearisome conversation, the prophet still controls the doctrine. Always, always. It reminds me of a story told by Packer years ago when President Kimball was visiting the original Thorvaldsen statues in Denmark. Standing near the statue of Peter, Packer relates: "Then came an experience I will never forget. President Kimball, this gentle prophet, turned to President Johan H. Benthin, of the Copenhagen Stake, and in a commanding voice said, 'I want you to tell every prelate in Denmark that they do not hold the keys! I HOLD THE KEYS!'"

I knew "Bruder" Benthin while I lived in Germany and he rehearsed this story to me as well. Neither the prelates of Denmark nor the lay membership of the church hold the keys and the rights to declare doctrine, or to alter the interpretation of scripture in any way. And you can always expect me to remind people of this who try to claim otherwise.