Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
I shouldn't respond to this, given that it's nothing but more personal attacks, but the analogy is so poor I can't resist.
Arch's assertion is of the form "if A, then B" .... if there is evidence that a prophet was concerned about the priesthood ban, then we know he inquired of God about it.
He then tries to move from that assertion to "not A, therefore not B" ... since there is no evidence a prophet was concerned about the priesthood ban, we can therefore conclude he never asked God about it.
Any first-semester logic student can tell you that is not correct.
What that has to do with me, Lingo, and sex ... or why you seem obsessed with such a fantasy ... is quite beyond me.
|
But you ignore the evidence that they continued to support the ban, i.e., by virtue of the evidence of the exclusion of blacks from Hotel Utah before 1960s.
So there is no evidence of a desire to change and there is evidence of support for racists policies makes an argument that they didn't seem concerned about it. More importantly, some, not all continued to make weak arguments supporting the ban.
I'm more comfortable that my assertion is correct. DoM was a godsend and SWK corrected a grevious error.