Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God
Re: Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of wedding cake discrimination, we will be hearing some of the LDS General Authorities tout this allowance to discriminated as an affirmation of religious liberties. If sufficiently excited President Oaks might exclaim to George and Jerry, "No cake for you!"
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha
-- Moksha
-
Not Buying It
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:29 pm
Re: Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God
Could there be any greater blasphemy than blaming your organziation's racist behavior on God? Oh, wait, maybe blaming a Church founder's sexually predatory behavior on God, that's pretty blasphemous too.
Of course, claiming to speak for God when spouting sexist and homophobic crap is also pretty blasphemous. Personally, I consider the Brethren to be the biggest blasphemers I can think of.
Of course, claiming to speak for God when spouting sexist and homophobic crap is also pretty blasphemous. Personally, I consider the Brethren to be the biggest blasphemers I can think of.
"The truth is elegantly simple. The lie needs complex apologia. 4 simple words: Joe made it up. It answers everything with the perfect simplicity of Occam's Razor. Every convoluted excuse withers." - Some guy on Reddit called disposazelph
-
didyoumythme
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:26 pm
Re: Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God
Amos 3:7 anyone? Do we have a prophet in the house?consiglieri wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:57 pm He says that God has a reason for the priesthood ban, but he hasn't told his prophets yet.
And the reasons he gave to his prophets before were all wrong.
But there is a reason out there somewhere that only God knows. But God isn't talking.
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being honest, or cease being mistaken. - Anonymous
Re: Oaks and the Priesthood Ban as a Directive from God
This whole line of thinking drives me nuts.
They *need* to have it both ways because you can't throw the founding prophets of the church under the bus... on the other hand even though the past prophets said this was from God, you have to dance around it or else call God an ignorant racist.
So they continue to have their cake and eat it too, because the people they are catering to won't question it.
The most insane thing to me from believers/apologists is that when prophets screw the pooch, people say they were speaking as men and didn't include 'thus sayeth the Lord." But then these big declarations don't have it either, so why are we considering them doctrine?
And for the love of all that is good, can someone please explain why we are to believe Joseph Smith received some revelations through the seer stone, some through just prayer, some through visions... but none of the prophets since claim to get revelation like that *at all?*
They *need* to have it both ways because you can't throw the founding prophets of the church under the bus... on the other hand even though the past prophets said this was from God, you have to dance around it or else call God an ignorant racist.
So they continue to have their cake and eat it too, because the people they are catering to won't question it.
The most insane thing to me from believers/apologists is that when prophets screw the pooch, people say they were speaking as men and didn't include 'thus sayeth the Lord." But then these big declarations don't have it either, so why are we considering them doctrine?
And for the love of all that is good, can someone please explain why we are to believe Joseph Smith received some revelations through the seer stone, some through just prayer, some through visions... but none of the prophets since claim to get revelation like that *at all?*