Can the Prophets contradict themselves?

Lookbeyond

Posts: 568

Jul 16, 2011 -- 6:53PM, Aka_me wrote:

according to revelation via the LDS church

God...

has never banned slavery or polygamy

God, merely gave humans the OPTION of not practicing polygamy, and never said BOO when slavery was practiced in the territory of Deseret.

it has only been the humans, who exercised their own free will to choose to change behavior, because the society in which they lived became more enlightened than the church leadership was doing for the membership.

the only conclusion one can draw is because God still condones both in the Celestial Kingdom.

Interesting conclusion you made about salvery in the Celestial Kingdom.......obviously you do not know the qualifications for the Celestial Kingdom......there will be no slavery!

Ironhold

Posts: 9,620

Jul 16, 2011 -- 6:53PM, Aka_me wrote:

God, merely gave humans the OPTION of not practicing polygamy, and never said BOO when slavery was practiced in the territory of Deseret.

You've yet to establish that slavery took place beyond a few individual members.

Habala?!

Posts: 1,136

Jul 16, 2011 -- 8:46PM, Ironhold wrote:

Jul 16, 2011 -- 6:53PM, Aka_me wrote:

God, merely gave humans the OPTION of not practicing polygamy, and never said BOO when slavery was practiced in the territory of Deseret.

You've yet to establish that slavery took place beyond a few individual members.

Why does that matter? The church sanctioned it. Thats what matters.

"When you walk, you might like to take the hand of a child. She will receive your concentration and stability, and you will receive her freshness and innocence." -Tich Naht Hanh

moksha8088

Posts: 4,572

Jul 16, 2011 -- 12:25AM, Kalzera wrote:

I'm aware that some degree of change can occur; but I'm wondering if something as deep-rooted as theology can change. Even if, officialy, it can happen, I'm still curious as to whether or not there's some "unwritten" understanding that basic theological matters won't change.

Banning Blacks from the LDS Priesthood was written into our practice and procedures manual and yet it was changed by inspired administrative fiat. That was a big, but way overdue, change. It helped enable the Church to transition from 19th to 20th Century realities.

Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Ironhold

Posts: 9,620

Jul 17, 2011 -- 1:39AM, Habala?! wrote:

Why does that matter?

The stance of the church was to never compel slaveholders to give up their slaves; rather, it was to debate and negotiate.

If you can't see the inherent difference between the two approaches, then you need to step back and research just what was going on with the slavery debate in the 1800s.

Kalzera

Posts: 258

Jul 17, 2011 -- 2:07AM, moksha8088 wrote:

Jul 16, 2011 -- 12:25AM, Kalzera wrote:

I'm aware that some degree of change can occur; but I'm wondering if something as deep-rooted as theology can change. Even if, officialy, it can happen, I'm still curious as to whether or not there's some "unwritten" understanding that basic theological matters won't change.

Banning Blacks from the LDS Priesthood was written into our practice and procedures manual and yet it was changed by inspired administrative fiat. That was a big, but way overdue, change. It helped enable the Church to transition from 19th to 20th Century realities.

Okay, thanks Moksha!

However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they may travel, it leads to me in the end - Bhagavad Gita 4:11

"Knowledge is a light which God casteth into the heart of whomsoever He willeth" - The Four Valleys; Hadith

Aka_me

Posts: 9,333

Jul 16, 2011 -- 8:46PM, Ironhold wrote:

Jul 16, 2011 -- 6:53PM, Aka_me wrote:

God, merely gave humans the OPTION of not practicing polygamy, and never said BOO when slavery was practiced in the territory of Deseret.

You've yet to establish that slavery took place beyond a few individual members.

let's apply the same line of reasoning to other topics and see if it still holds water...

as long as it's only a small percent of LDS drinking alcohol... there's no need to ban it or worry about them because a small percent won't matter.

as long as it's only a few LDS members cheating on their wives there's no reason to make an issue of it because a few individuals make no difference in the grand scheme of things.

just as I thought...

that which is wrong, is ALWAYS going to be wrong. no matter how many people ARE or are NOT committing said offense.

there's enough money for free college and health care, it's not a matter of HAVING the money, it's a matter of priorities. and this country feels death and murder of foreigners through war is more important than the health and well being of its own citizens.

Ironhold

Posts: 9,620

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:26PM, Aka_me wrote:

that which is wrong, is ALWAYS going to be wrong. no matter how many people ARE or are NOT committing said offense.

You just don't get it, do you?

Aka_me

Posts: 9,333

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:29PM, Ironhold wrote:

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:26PM, Aka_me wrote:

that which is wrong, is ALWAYS going to be wrong. no matter how many people ARE or are NOT committing said offense.

You just don't get it, do you?

yes... I do get it

it's not a problem for church members to own slaves, EVEN TODAY, because God has never seen fit to rule against it.

nor has God seen fit to specify monogomy only, it was only the OPTION to not practice polygamy and still remain on one's path to godhood.

however the description that polygamy does in fact please God... is still canonized.

there's enough money for free college and health care, it's not a matter of HAVING the money, it's a matter of priorities. and this country feels death and murder of foreigners through war is more important than the health and well being of its own citizens.

Ironhold

Posts: 9,620

*headdesk*

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:34PM, Aka_me wrote:

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:29PM, Ironhold wrote:

Jul 17, 2011 -- 11:26PM, Aka_me wrote:

that which is wrong, is ALWAYS going to be wrong. no matter how many people ARE or are NOT committing said offense.

You just don't get it, do you?

yes... I do get it

it's not a problem for church members to own slaves, EVEN TODAY, because God has never seen fit to rule against it.

nor has God seen fit to specify monogomy only, it was only the OPTION to not practice polygamy and still remain on one's path to godhood.

however the description that polygamy does in fact please God... is still canonized.

The church actually did stand opposed to slavery, but did not see fit to use coercion or other such means.

Rather, they preferred logic and debate.

For someone who claims to be opposed to warfare and violence, your arguments suggest a rather violent bent to your outlook on life.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot