NOM

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!"

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.

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.

Amos 3:7 anyone? Do we have a prophet in the house?

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?*