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

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by 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.

I appreciate the points you made. One of your better posts. But yet again, you failed to answer my simple and basic question. I understand your reluctance; you painted yourself into a logical corner and responding would require you to admit that you were wrong. Thus, you dodged the question yet again.

And with that, you have officially worn me out. I am through with this debate.

Peace.

[Tex]

Not to re-kindle this debate, but given Arch's obsession with me admitting that I'm wrong, I thought I'd share this little tidbit from an Oaks' talk (courtesy of BYUinNYC who disingenuously posted it for another reason):

Originally Posted by Dallin Oaks

Before the Saints came to the Rocky Mountains, Wilford Woodruff saw in a dream that he would come west with the Saints, that a great temple would be built out of cut granite stone, and that he would attend the dedicatory services. He wisely kept that knowledge confidential—even when his file leader, Brigham Young, was speaking of building the Salt Lake Temple of adobe or brick. He revealed his dream in 1880, when a granite temple was under construction. (See Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, pp. 299-300). As we now know, it was Wilford Woodruff who had the high and holy duty, as president of the Church, of dedicating the Salt Lake Temple. I suspect this was also part of his dream, but he left it unsaid in 1880, since another was then president of the Church.

To cite a more personal example, many of us have had the experience of having the spirit whisper what we would be called to a particular position. Quite a few of the stake presidents I have installed, and some of their wives, have had that foreknowledge. Did they tell me in the initial interview? Obviously not. To share that knowledge out of season would be seen of men as aspiring and could be seen of God as trifling with sacred things.

Although more elegantly phrased than mine, I believe this is exactly what I said about God revealing things outside of a person's stewardship.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml