Is God Complacent About Slavery?

A respone to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4&t=258s

Me:  The bible doesn't say slavery is okay.  Instead, God was saying it was appropriate for a time.  Then, God spoke to Abraham Lincoln to end it as well. 

Opponent:  But, that's an interpretation fallacy.  The evidence doesn't speak for itself, but instead you are basing your argument ont he axiom that God exists.

Me: if there is not axiom, then there is no motivation.  You have an axiom too.  Nihilism allows evidence to speak for itself, but that may be because our minds simply aren't capable of understanding the meaning of the universe yet.  Since I acknowledge my limited faculties, and a hope that makes life better, I allow God to be my axiom. 

Me;  By the way, your searching for a more humanistic society is axiomatic as well in its belief in human intuition and betterment for society.  Both of us need an axiom, but every person has the right to posit apriori opinions, as long as they are not irrefutably dogmatic. 

Opponent:  Then, how much evidence do you need to change your opinion?  How uncontroversial must it be?  What about Hume's mandit that the evidence for a miracle must be so overwhelming tha tit would be unjust to deny the claim to the miracle.  Miraculous claims require miraculous proof. 

Me:  To answer you first part question: There is a power in allowing things to speak for themselves, but that kind of overarching interpretation, especially considering the bible, is not an easy feat.  Thus, scripture is more of a heuristic from God than it is a prescription for life.  All parts of the bible must be taken within the context of the whole. 

Me: secondly, I do not see the problem with believing in miracles so long as I can objectively analyze the pragmatic hope that can be derived from it. 

Opponent: and how do you objectively determine the best hope?  Intuition? 

Me;  Perhaps it's not different than the humanistic intuition that pushes you to believe in humanity and establishing appropriate laws. 

Opponent: case settled, though I do not see room for the authoritarian position of the prophet in Christ's church.  Who can refute his authority? 

Me:  I see a high level of democratic-like conduct amidst the twelve apostles and the volunteer and calling-based theocratic system of the church, so perhaps this is too abstract a question.  Just because there is a possibility of tyranny doesn't mean we should remove all power.  That is what the French discovered in the French Revolution: that some contract must be made, some freedoms surrendered, in order to create a more perfect union.  The effectiveness of the twelve and presidency is admirable, in that it involves heavy discourse, careful collaborative decision making, and a final plea to God (or, to your intuition) for his guidance.  Interpret it as you will, but we are seeking the same thing.

Opponent:  But what about all the false things the prophets said in the past?  There are false prophesy and false doctrine, and the latter is inexcusable for a "prophet." 

Me:  No prophet is perfect, not even Moses.  Christ himself addressed humans through language, and not through telepathy.  I believe God speaks through scripture, which is a type of telepathy that could be hindered by literal interpretation that blinds my heart and head from connecting.  God guides his church through the subtleties of the individuals who humbly seek him, regardless of the evil ideas or actions of a prophet.  Jonah is an example of this.  Prophets are, more than anything, messengers and symbols of hope that perform the work of God, but they are allowed to mess up. 

Opponent:  What about direct revelation?  That can't be refuted, can it? 

Me:  Every man is responsible for his own soul.