In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[Archaea]

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Did you know that until the early 60's blacks were not allowed to stay at the church-owned Hotel Utah? Doesn't exactly seem like it was a climate friendly to blacks in general. In that light, I have a hard time seeing that the leaders were motivated to change it.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

We're really starting to grasp at straws when we judge our prophets' divine communication by the policies of the Hotel Utah.

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

I'm glad it's gone too. But you've been entirely unpersuasive that your reasoning thereby is any better or worse than mine.

[SoCalCoug]

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.

Not entirely correct. You mischaracterize Archaea's first assertion. Actually, you made it up. There are numerous references in DOM's biography where he indicated that he made inquiries regarding blacks and the priesthood. There is no analogizing involved there.

If I recall correctly, someone made the comment about how do we know that no other prophets from BY to SWK also inquired about blacks and the priesthood.

Archaea said that he has read a lot about the subject, and about other prophets, and has seen no evidence that they inquired. Therefore the premise is that because there is no evidence that they did so, it is a reasonable assumption that they did not. (This is also consistent with the evidence of racist tendencies of most Utahns at that time).

You then asked Archaea to affirmatively prove the absence of any inquiry, stating that because he cannot do so, he cannot support his claim.

You clearly are not a first-semester logic student. The logical fallacy belongs to you.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

We're really starting to grasp at straws when we judge our prophets' divine communication by the policies of the Hotel Utah.

Well, there's more to it that Jeff didn't mention. Ralph Bunche was visiting Utah on a speaking tour. He requested permission to stay at the Hotel Utah. McKay was asked to decide if this should be allowed as it was against the Hotel's policy. McKay reached the decision that this would be acceptable as long as Dr. Bunche took his meals in his room and not downstairs with the white guests. It is at the very least a revealing look at McKay's view of race in the 50's.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

We're really starting to grasp at straws when we judge our prophets' divine communication by the policies of the Hotel Utah.

Church-owned Hotel Utah. And don't try to argue that the leaders were unaware of the hotel's policy. At one point a black Nobel prize winner come to SLC and tried to register at the hotel. The front desk had to call DOM at home to get permission to let him register.

We were illustrating the general climate. It is anecdotal, but it supports our argument.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Therefore the premise is that because there is no evidence that they did so, it is a reasonable assumption that they did not.

And this is correctly identified as an argument from ignorance, as I said earlier.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You clearly are not a first-semester logic student.

You are correct. I took two semesters.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Church-owned Hotel Utah. And don't try to argue that the leaders were unaware of the hotel's policy. At one point a black Nobel prize winner come to SLC and tried to register at the hotel. The front desk had to call DOM at home to get permission to let him register.

We were illustrating the general climate. It is anecdotal, but it supports our argument.

I wasn't going to argue that the leaders were unaware of the policy. I simply see no reason to think that the policy of the church-owned (nice emphasis) Hotel Utah is in any way reflective of what the prophet and God discussed at night.

It's reaching.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wasn't going to argue that the leaders were unaware of the policy. I simply see no reason to think that the policy of the church-owned (nice emphasis) Hotel Utah is in any way reflective of what the prophet and God discussed at night.

It's reaching.

I think you are well aware of the point we were making.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think you are well aware of the point we were making.

I'll tell you what I'm aware of. (That's my lead in to my grand summary before I take off for the weekend ... then you'll be free of my drivel for a while and can slander me (or is it libel?) in peace. )

1. You (not Lebowski specifically, but a group YOU) reject the premise that the priesthood ban could be based in anything other than racism because some of the men who supported/instituted it held racist views. This, despite the fact that God knew the hearts of the men he selected to lead his church before they were born, much less before they harbored any racist views.

2. You therefore reject the idea that God could be racist, despite interesting though imperfect parallels throughout the Bible. Rather than answering those parallels directly, you either claim those passages of the Bible are flawed, or just do some good old-fashioned name-calling.

3. Since God is not a racist, and yet his church embraced a racist policy, you must necessarily create some other divine conclusion as to why it was permitted to exist. Perhaps God didn't care? Perhaps God was waiting around for the right prophet or the right mood among his people? Perhaps God actually told his prophet to change it, but the prophet didn't listen? You suggest all these, but can substantiate none of it by scripture.

3. You deduce therefrom that the ban must have been because of individual prophetic racism. Some of you even postulate that the short lives of some of the prophets might be indication that God was displeased with their racist attitudes.

4. Or, if it's too uncomfortable to call 11 of 15 latter day prophets racists, you assert that the church wasn't ready to follow the prophet down a color-neutral priesthood path. Maybe the prophets weren't racists, you think. It was just the body of the church who would not be ready to follow the prophet. This, despite the fact that they seemed to be willing to follow the prophet anywhere else.

5. Either way, you decide that even if they weren't overt racists, they were certainly complacent enough to not even bother the Lord about the issue. This, despite citing how difficult and how ridiculous the program appeared to be to administrate.

6. Lastly, you assume that anyone who disagrees with any of the above points must necessarily be a closet racist.

I not only find this unpersuasive, but I find it entirely unsupported by scripture or tradition. In fact, your whole scenario reflects poorly on everyone: on the prophets for either advocating or not ending it, on the membership for being unwilling to accept it, and on God for allowing it all to happen in the first place.

The only people who it doesn't reflect poorly on, funny enough, is you. You, of course, are enlightened folk who are naturally not racists yourselves. Together, unracist you and unracist God are a team that can point out all the racism in everyone else.

That's what I'm aware of. It's an interesting path to walk down, and of course, all of you are welcome to it.

Cheers, and have a wonderful non-racist weekend!

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

4. Or, if it's too uncomfortable to call 11 of 15 latter day prophets racists, you assert that the church wasn't ready to follow the prophet down a color-neutral priesthood path. Maybe the prophets weren't racists, you think. It was just the body of the church who would not be ready to follow the prophet. This, despite the fact that they seemed to be willing to follow the prophet anywhere else.

After 3 >15 page threads on the topic I'm more than weary. All of the points you listed have been thoroughly addressed, and I'm not going to waste any more time (today at least) typing the same thing again and again. However, I found your point number 4 here to be humorous. Why? Well, it appears that this was one of the greatest worries of the brethren as they were working this whole thing out. McKay commissioned a committee from the 12 to study the matter and they apparently came to the conclusion that there was no scriptural evidence for the ban but that the membership was not ready for a change (McKay book chapter 4).

I think the membership would have followed McKay had he made the decision to drop the ban. But McKay and the brethren had to get there in their own time. God allows his leaders to get things right in their own time. History is full of examples showing that this is the norm and not the exception.

Oh, and as an aside, I'd like to go on record stating that I don't believe that Tex or Indy are racists. Nor do I believe that somebody who takes their position is necessarily racist. I do however think that it takes a considerable amount of imagination and denial to ignore the piles of evidence available regarding the blacks and the priesthood issue and decide that the ban was that God intended all along.

[JohnnyLingo]

I'd like to go on record stating that I don't believe that Tex or Indy are racists. Nor do I believe that somebody who takes their position is necessarily racist.

Aw, even SteeBlue believes I'm a racist.