In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let's follow this logic. It's out of God's character to inspire this.

And you show some trials to allegedly demonstrate Saints could have dealt with reality? What does that have to do with God's character?

Nothing. My earlier question about Samuel and Saul had to do with God's character.

As I said ... absent a response to my questions ... I decided to come at the issue from a different angle: that of the likelihood that God would allow the ban to continue because his people "couldn't handle it."

[Gerdy Eysser]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I disagree with the notion that Peter was taught only to teach to the Jews.
From what I have been taught, from the very beginning of Christ's life he was to teach to all peoples (hence the visit of the Maji at His birth, Christ's interaction with the Samaritans, etc). That idea should carry through to His Apostles.

Why God would "change his mind" and start again with a chosen people who alone would have a priesthood, exclud "so-called Laminites, etc, 1800 years later is a major flaw in Joseph Smith's attempt at convincing me he was instructed to reform the "true" Christian Church. He created a church which does many things to Old Testament ways, and in so many ways contrary to the new covenant of Christ.

That has got to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on this board, which is saying something considering we have Johnny Lingo, Tex, darkbritches and SeattleUte. Congrats, jackass.
________
Glass Pipes

[Tex]

Originally Posted by archaea

Show me writings that others inquired, and I'll retract it.

This is called an argument from ignorance. "Because we lack the evidence, it must therefore be true that ..."

That's a logical fallacy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Archaea has taken the tact that it is outside the character of God to have instituted/approved/authored/inspired such a policy.

Absent a response to my questions, I decided to postulate whether following a prophet who decided to rescind the ban pre-Kimball would be outside the character of the early Saints.

I don't deny that it may not have been widely known, but only further supports my point. Clearly if they could follow a prophet through those other things, they could follow him through this.

Interesting point, but I don't think we had a case where the prophets were ready for a change but the people weren't. I don't think Archaea was making that point, but I can let him answer.

Tex, you should get a copy of the DOM biography and read the chapter on blacks and the priesthood:

http://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Ri...8916666&sr=8-1

And I don't mean this in a condescending way. It truly is a fascinating book. I am confident that you will enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Tex

Did "thorough research" lead you to this conclusion as well?

Which conclusion?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is called an argument from ignorance. "Because we lack the evidence, it must therefore be true that ..."

That's a logical fallacy.

You're asking me to prove a negative, dingaling, the most I can do is state I've reviewed existing authorities and found no proof. Given the fact that the two about whom we know inquired, changes were made, it seems the silence and lack of changes from others indicates an argument that they may have ignored the issue. Not conclusive, but given Lee's hostility and some of the issues with the phaisaical Fielding Smiths, it seems logical that they did not inquire.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Interesting point, but I don't think we had a case where the prophets were ready for a change but the people weren't. I don't think Archaea was making that point, but I can let him answer.

Tex, you should get a copy of the DOM biography and read the chapter on blacks and the priesthood:

http://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Ri...8916666&sr=8-1

And I don't mean this in a condescending way. It truly is a fascinating book. I am confident that you will enjoy it.

Which conclusion?

I'd be happy to read it. After I read Bushman's and a few others on my list.

"Which conclusion?" That none of the prophets from Young to Kimball save McKay inquired about the priesthood ban.

Originally Posted by archaea

You're asking me to prove a negative, dingaling, the most I can do is state I've reviewed existing authorities and found no proof. Given the fact that the two about whom we know inquired, changes were made, it seems the silence and lack of changes from others indicates an argument that they may have ignored the issue. Not conclusive, but given Lee's hostility and some of the issues with the phaisaical Fielding Smiths, it seems logical that they did not inquire.

No, I am asking you to substantiate your claim, which unfortunately for you is quite unprovable. You could also assert that none of the prophets ever ate hot dogs because there's no evidence of it in their writings.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I am asking you to substantiate your claim, which unfortunately for you is quite unprovable. You could also assert that none of the prophets ever ate hot dogs because there's no evidence of it in their writings.

Okay. Let's say that in a "super secret" forum where you and Lingo cannot be present, I were to ask Archaea to prove that you and Lingo never had sex together. Well, there's no evidence to "prove" that the event never occurred. (Remember, the prophets between Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball are dead, so there's no direct appeal to them).

Are you saying that it would be a logical fallacy for Archaea to take the position in this argument that you and Lingo never had sex together, because he cannot prove it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'd be happy to read it. After I read Bushman's and a few others on my list.

I would recommend the DOM book first. Much more readable.

Originally Posted by Tex

"Which conclusion?" That none of the prophets from Young to Kimball save McKay inquired about the priesthood ban.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I haven't seen any evidence that any of them felt like there was anything wrong with the ban.

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.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'd be happy to read it. After I read Bushman's and a few others on my list.

I'd put the McKay book ahead of Bushman's. I think you'll find the whole thing fascinating (with the exception of the chapter on communications which was nearly intolerable).

Originally Posted by Tex

Which conclusion?" That none of the prophets from Young to Kimball save McKay inquired about the priesthood ban.

McKay definitely asked. The bio makes that very clear. He laid the foundation for the changes that were to come, without question. He put together a committee composed of members of the 12 who found that there was "no scriptural evidence" for the ban but that the membership wasn't ready for a change. It is almost certain that McKay felt there was no doctrinal reason for the ban all along. For some reason, he was never able to pull that trigger. I have no question that he felt he was doing the right thing. But I believe with the benefit of hindsight that the reason has become fairly obvious.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Okay. Let's say that in a "super secret" forum where you and Lingo cannot be present, I were to ask Archaea to prove that you and Lingo never had sex together. Well, there's no evidence to "prove" that the event never occurred. (Remember, the prophets between Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball are dead, so there's no direct appeal to them).

Are you saying that it would be a logical fallacy for Archaea to take the position in this argument that you and Lingo never had sex together, because he cannot prove it?

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.