>You didn’t even read my post. Sect 132 is for the mormon peoples, Exodus 3 is for the Israelite peoples. peoples = peoples. Moses = individual. individual does not equal peoples. Your understanding in Ex 20 is slightly flawed but understandable.
I did read. I use the example to point to the nature of God. I don’t see why that nature would be different based on whether it was for a person or a people. And Moses was one of the people, but he (and all the other adults) were prohibited from entering the promised land.
That was a direct 180 from what God had earlier commanded.
>Nice opinion, show me where that is official mormon doctrine.
There is not official doctrine as to WHY God does things. We can only read what God has done and try to figure it out using our limited human understanding.
Show me where there is an official doctrine that the LDS Church changed the doctrine on its own due to political pressure, as opposed to an order from God?
Significant difference - individuals have souls, people groups do not have a collective soul. Therefore God judges individuals differently from a collective.
And Moses was one of the people, but he (and all the other adults) were prohibited from entering the promised land.
Wrong, Joshua and Caleb entered the land, because of their faithfulness. Secondly Israel did enter the land 40 years later - God placed no timetable on when they (the nation of Israel) would enter the land.
There is not official doctrine as to WHY God does things. We can only read what God has done and try to figure it out using our limited human understanding.
Then your explaination is not a supported justification of the 180 degree change in god's command.
Show me where there is an official doctrine that the LDS Church changed the doctrine on its own due to political pressure, as opposed to an order from God?
Interesting quote found here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1
Made by then LDS President Woodruff:
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
Facing the choice of eternal damnation and not being permitted to enter glory (D&C 132:4) or accepting the authority of the government over god history shows that Woodruff threw 132 under the wheels.