Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for your opinions. I apologize if pointing out your bias, one sided research or inability to remain objective offended you. You haven't refuted anything written on those sites, you just don't like the source. Duly noted; however, the argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such.
"Mormonism changed its practice in 1978 under intense social pressure, but still clings to the doctrine, by refusing to repudiate the so-called scriptures wherein it is taught."
I don't want to go on and on about the topic but as my post addressed,the watchman groups 'essay' is factually,completely incorrect in regard to the above sentence.Whether intentional or just sloppy research I don't know but if a groups aim is to educate others about a different groups beliefs an effort should be made to be as accurate in reflecting those beliefs as possible.There is not,and never has been any doctrine or wording contained within the canon of lds 'so called scriptures' to repudiate regarding the subject of 'black men holding the priesthood.'There is a history of some church leaders making statements in support of the policy but it was always a 'church policy' never a point of doctrine and subsequent church leaders have repudiated,some in very strong terms,the 'policy'.Infallibility of church leaders is not a mormon doctrine either and some in history have made indefensible racial comments,not exactly rare for the time periods in which they were raised but indefensible nonetheless.
Those of you who belong to churches who have an unblemished history in all leaders and actions feel free to throw the first stone.
Thank you for your opinions. I apologize if pointing out your bias, one sided research or inability to remain objective offended you. You haven't refuted anything written on those sites, you just don't like the source. Duly noted; however, the argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such.
I will admit to having a personal tendency for bias in favor of the underdog. I'm always rooting for the team or athlete that gets hated on for no logical reason. You probably don't know much about the UFC or MMA, but I'm always going to bat debating in favor of guys like Jon Fitch or Rashad Evans. I'm a big supporter for lesser know organizations like Bellator.
If that's all Greek to you, let me put it this way: I'm a diehard Chicago Cubs fan.
But I really am trying to be neutral and objective.
the argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such.
"The argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such"??You think sources and their agends don't matter?So I should research whether I should support Romney or Paul based on what Obamas website tells me?
"The argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such"??You think sources and their agends don't matter?So I should research whether I should support Romney or Paul based on what Obamas website tells me?
I was under the impression that he was saying that he was disregarding his source. Did I get that wrong?
I was under the impression that he was saying that he was disregarding his source. Did I get that wrong?
I got the impression he was disregarding your logic for attacking his source and saying you did nothing to prove his source wrong.He didn't even bother addressing either of my posts so I think he still stands where he did before.....
I will admit to having a personal tendency for bias in favor of the underdog. I'm always rooting for the team or athlete that gets hated on for no logical reason. You probably don't know much about the UFC or MMA, but I'm always going to bat debating in favor of guys like Jon Fitch or Rashad Evans. I'm a big supporter for lesser know organizations like Bellator.
If that's all Greek to you, let me put it this way: I'm a diehard Chicago Cubs fan.
But I really am trying to be neutral and objective.
lol...
I don't hate any religion. In many contexts as I've expressed before, I simply don't care. I tend to care more about the heart of a person and their actions; however, I am not so naive that I would prescribe to a belief that persons cannot be influenced by prejudices indoctrination produces. I'm often curious about the pieces or remnants if you will, within the belief system that various religions begin to stray from as they approach the point of harmony and truth within the religion's teachings.
I'm also curious in the context of the OP, how those who seek positions of power and would govern, could be influenced by these belief systems.
I do recognize that exploring these issues often moves those questioned, (or providing answers), towards a particular position of bias or often defense that can be difficult (initially) to avoid. There's no animosity. I love the fact that you've responded.
~namaste
Last edited by walidm; 03-10-2012 at 06:04 PM..
Reason: we do catch UFC every now and then at the FOX n Hound...lol
"The argument against the source is a logical fallacy and disregarded as such"??You think sources and their agends don't matter?So I should research whether I should support Romney or Paul based on what Obamas website tells me?
No.
I don't "think" anything you've suggested.
I know logical fallacy's should be disregarded. They are inherently flawed.
For instance your second and third statement are both logical fallacy's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think sources and their agends don't matter?So I should research whether I should support Romney or Paul based on what Obamas website tells me?
