No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Russell C McGregor]

The No True Scotsman fallacy consists of changing a definition to become a tautology. The name comes from an example of the fallacy based upon a dialogue similar to the following:

Grandfather: Whit's this, Hamish? What d'ye think yer doing?

Hamish: Putting sugar on ma porridge, Grandpa.

G: Och, don't ye know that nae Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge?

H: But ma friend Angus from Aberdeen puts sugar on his porridge.

G: Tha's as may be, but nae true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!

Note the elements of the fallacy in view: Grandfather begins by making an assertion about a characteristic of a set, namely, the set of all Scotsmen. He asserts that no members of this set use sugar with their porridge.

Hamish then produces a valid counter-example: his friend Angus from Aberdeen. Aberdeen is a city in Scotland, and Angus is a male Scottish name. Angus would therefore appear to be a member of the set of all Scotsmen.

Grandfather, instead of admitting that Angus provides a counter-example, then shifts his ground by introducing a new category, namely the true Scotsman. And it happens that eschewing the use of sugar is a characteristic of this new ad-hoc category. Grandfather's assertion admits of no falsification because it is part of the definition of the category he has invented.

Those who are routinely accusing me of relying upon the No True Scotsman fallacy do so because they see a superficial resemblance with what I have asserted. They assume that the assertion "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" is structurally equivalent to "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

But the resemblance has to be more than structural; it has to be substantive as well.

So the question arises: is every qualifier placed in front of a set descriptor automatically suspect?

I suggest that it is not.

Consider the following statement:

No patriotic American would betray his country to its enemies.

Perhaps some history buff might then say, "I know a counter-example to that assertion: Benedict Arnold."

Then you may retort, "But he wasn't a patriotic American!"

And then someone will say, "Humph! It's that no true Scotsman fallacy again! It's time he was banned for good!!"

I guess any excuse will do.

But thoughtful people may well prefer not to take the knee-jerk approach. They may say, "Wait: was Benedict Arnold really a patriotic American? Does the expression 'patriotic American' actually convey any meaning? Or is it just an ad hoc way of excluding inconvenient counter-examples?"

I modestly suggest that to say someone is a patriotic American is to make an assertion that is falsifiable, and validly seen as conveying actual meaning.

And so it is with the expression "Faithful Latter-day Saint."

As we have recently seen from the John Dehlin dust-up, just about anyone can choose to call herself a "Mormon." It doesn't matter what such a person believes, how she spends her Sundays, what beverages she drinks, whether she chooses to tithe, or how much of her leisure time is devoted to attacking the truth claims of the Church, maligning its leaders or opposing its mission; if such a one can claim that being a "Mormon" is part of her "culture," then anyone daring to question that is going to call down the wrath of the politically correct thought police (PCTP) in short order.

But when someone claims to be a believing Latter-day Saint, then they claim to believe, at least, the key truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ; and when they claim to be a faithful Latter-day Saint then they are making further claims.

Such a person is claiming to be loyal to the Church and its mission in the world.

Such a person is claiming to sustain -- meaning, actively uphold -- the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators; not merely as institutional titles, but as describing their actual roles as those whom the True and Living God has chosen to represent Him on the earth; and to do so uniquely, and not merely among other nice guys.

Such a person is claiming to uphold the values and moral standards of the Church of Jesus Christ, even -- or especially -- when those values and standards are at odds with the non-values of a wicked world.

Such a person claims to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ, not merely as a friendly social club, but as a covenant community of Saints.

Such a person claims to have made sacred covenants, and to be striving -- faithfully -- to keep them.

Such a person claims to revere the Temple -- not merely as a nice building with well-kept gardens, but as the House of the Lord, a uniquely holy place that has been set apart from the world.

Such a person would strenuously, even passionately, resist any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord; recognising such practices to be a desecration of the holy place.

Such a person does not need to explain away, or qualify, those joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which declare binding, official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. Nor is such a person arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment" on settled matters of doctrine. Such a person knows that an attitude like that is entirely incompatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint, being that it is entirely apostate.

[CCRW]

I had just assumed that all New Zealander's  were grumps ... so what you are telling me is that only true New Zealander's are grumps ... have I got this right?

[CCRW]

Even with that wall of text I don't see how that description discounts the fallacy

 

Russell likes his Church with 3 Tablespoons of sugar, Another may only prefer 3 teaspoons of sugar.  But only the Full sugar beliefs are Faithful Latter Day Saints with any other are only Latter Day Saints.

[tonie]

Poster P: No Saint believes____.

Responder X: I am a Saint and believe __.

Poster P: No Faithful Saint believes ____.

Not seeing a difference between Poster P and the fallacy of No true scottsman.

Edited April 29, 2015 by tonie

[jwhitlock]

Excellent OP.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You should probably let the first presidency know about what makes a "faithful" latter-day saint. That way they can change the temple recommend interview accordingly and weed all us non-"faithful" latter-day saints. You may want to keep your plans secret however as around here that would be known as steadying the ark.

Edited April 29, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In all seriousness, you miss the point. Just as the grandfather doesn't get to decide what makes a "true" scotsman, last I checked you aren't in charge of deciding who is and who isn't a "faithful" latter-day saint.

Edited April 29, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Russell C McGregor]

Poster P: No Saint believes____.

Responder X: I am a Saint and believe __.

Poster P: No Faithful Saint believes ____.

Not seeing a difference between Poster P and the fallacy of No true scottsman.

Then I suggest that you try reading it for comprehension.

[Russell C McGregor]

In all seriousness, you miss the point. Just as the grandfather doesn't get to decide what makes a "true" scotsman, last I checked you aren't in charge of deciding who is and who isn't a "faithful" latter-day saint.

But that's not material in determining whether the fallacy is in evidence. Do you get to decide what makes a "patriotic" American? So on what basis do you exclude Benedict Arnold?

[Coreyb]

You should probably let the first presidency know about what makes a "faithful" latter-day saint. That way they can change the temple recommend interview accordingly and weed all us non-"faithful" latter-day saints. You may want to keep your plans secret however as around here that would be know as steadying the ark.

Actually you had better let the Holy Spirit of Promise know, in case he accidentally ratifies the covenants of a Gay-Marriage-er. Pretty sure he is the only member of the "faithful" police force

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But that's not material in determining whether the fallacy is in evidence. Do you get to decide what makes a "patriotic" American? So on what basis do you exclude Benedict Arnold?

I'm confused. Are you saying Benedict Arnold considered himself a patriotic American?

[SmileyMcGee]

The No True Scotsman fallacy consists of changing a definition to become a tautology. The name comes from an example of the fallacy based upon a dialogue similar to the following:

Grandfather: Whit's this, Hamish? What d'ye think yer doing?

Hamish: Putting sugar on ma porridge, Grandpa.

G: Och, don't ye know that nae Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge?

H: But ma friend Angus from Aberdeen puts sugar on his porridge.

G: Tha's as may be, but nae true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!

Note the elements of the fallacy in view: Grandfather begins by making an assertion about a characteristic of a set, namely, the set of all Scotsmen. He asserts that no members of this set use sugar with their porridge.

Hamish then produces a valid counter-example: his friend Angus from Aberdeen. Aberdeen is a city in Scotland, and Angus is a male Scottish name. Angus would therefore appear to be a member of the set of all Scotsmen.

Grandfather, instead of admitting that Angus provides a counter-example, then shifts his ground by introducing a new category, namely the true Scotsman. And it happens that eschewing the use of sugar is a characteristic of this new ad-hoc category. Grandfather's assertion admits of no falsification because it is part of the definition of the category he has invented.

Those who are routinely accusing me of relying upon the No True Scotsman fallacy do so because they see a superficial resemblance with what I have asserted. They assume that the assertion "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" is structurally equivalent to "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

But the resemblance has to be more than structural; it has to be substantive as well.

So the question arises: is every qualifier placed in front of a set descriptor automatically suspect?

I suggest that it is not.

Consider the following statement:

No patriotic American would betray his country to its enemies.

Perhaps some history buff might then say, "I know a counter-example to that assertion: Benedict Arnold."

Then you may retort, "But he wasn't a patriotic American!"

And then someone will say, "Humph! It's that no true Scotsman fallacy again! It's time he was banned for good!!"

I guess any excuse will do.

But thoughtful people may well prefer not to take the knee-jerk approach. They may say, "Wait: was Benedict Arnold really a patriotic American? Does the expression 'patriotic American' actually convey any meaning? Or is it just an ad hoc way of excluding inconvenient counter-examples?"

I modestly suggest that to say someone is a patriotic American is to make an assertion that is falsifiable, and validly seen as conveying actual meaning.

And so it is with the expression "Faithful Latter-day Saint."

As we have recently seen from the John Dehlin dust-up, just about anyone can choose to call herself a "Mormon." It doesn't matter what such a person believes, how she spends her Sundays, what beverages she drinks, whether she chooses to tithe, or how much of her leisure time is devoted to attacking the truth claims of the Church, maligning its leaders or opposing its mission; if such a one can claim that being a "Mormon" is part of her "culture," then anyone daring to question that is going to call down the wrath of the politically correct thought police (PCTP) in short order.

But when someone claims to be a believing Latter-day Saint, then they claim to believe, at least, the key truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ; and when they claim to be a faithful Latter-day Saint then they are making further claims.

Such a person is claiming to be loyal to the Church and its mission in the world.

Such a person is claiming to sustain -- meaning, actively uphold -- the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators; not merely as institutional titles, but as describing their actual roles as those whom the True and Living God has chosen to represent Him on the earth; and to do so uniquely, and not merely among other nice guys.

Such a person is claiming to uphold the values and moral standards of the Church of Jesus Christ, even -- or especially -- when those values and standards are at odds with the non-values of a wicked world.

Such a person claims to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ, not merely as a friendly social club, but as a covenant community of Saints.

Such a person claims to have made sacred covenants, and to be striving -- faithfully -- to keep them.

Such a person claims to revere the Temple -- not merely as a nice building with well-kept gardens, but as the House of the Lord, a uniquely holy place that has been set apart from the world.

Such a person would strenuously, even passionately, resist any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord; recognising such practices to be a desecration of the holy place.

Such a person does not need to explain away, or qualify, those joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which declare binding, official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. Nor is such a person arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment" on settled matters of doctrine. Such a person knows that an attitude like that is entirely incompatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint, being that it is entirely apostate.

Meh...you've really just defined what you think it means to be a believing lds. It is possible for people to believe the claims and not do anything. Believing and doing are different things. I can believe that smoking is bad and still smoke. I can believe that Jesus is the savior and still choose to not repent. You're just implying that belief only exists if people live congruently with the belief they claim to accept. i think you'd have a hard time defending that claim

At the same time, who cares what it means to be a believing lds? Is the point to call out people who don't accept your definition?

Edited April 29, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm confused. Are you saying Benedict Arnold considered himself a patriotic American?

He may very well have done, but that's not really the point, is it?

But I suppose that's an interesting thought experiment. If Benedict Arnold had had a podcast through the 1770's, how do you think he might describe himself?

[mfbukowski]

All I know is that no true Wittgensteinian would reply to this thread.

I love ya anyway

[SeekingUnderstanding]

He may very well have done, but that's not really the point, is it?

But I suppose that's an interesting thought experiment. If Benedict Arnold had had a podcast through the 1770's, how do you think he might describe himself?

As a British patriot loyal to the crown. Do you have any evidence of anyone anywhere claiming that Arnold was an American patriot after his betrayal? If not your analogy is really strained.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Let me help you see the fallacy Russell. You claim no faithful Mormon can hope for a day when God would reveal Gay marriage to be acceptable. People then say, hey I know a person that tithes, is temple worthy, serves faithfully in his calling, does his home teaching, tries to love his fellow man, loves the church and yet he has this hope. Then instead of refuting the example(by showing this person doesn't exist) or changing your universal claim you effectively state that no truly* faithful Latter-day Saint hopes for this.

*you don't say 'truly' you just come up with a 500 word definition (not found in any official church materials) that conveniently excludes people who hope for gay marriage acceptance).

This seems like an open and shut case of no true Scotsman to me.

Per wiki:

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2]

[tonie]

Russell, there is not much to comprehend.

 

Here is what I comprehend:

 

In an attempt to justify your use of a fallacy, you demonstrated that YOU regard YOURSELF as the one who gets to determine anothers Faithfulness. You have not helped your cause.

[Brian 2.0]

The No True Scotsman fallacy consists of...

......

......

... Such a person knows that an attitude like that is entirely incompatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint, being that it is entirely apostate.

 

This is absolutely fantastic!  Thanks for making this its own thread.

 

Tonie is correct in his assessment of your post.  You have argued your way out of the No True Scotsman fallacy... maybe... I need to look back at what you officially said in the old thread... but I'll grant it to you now because this is even better.  

 

You're more firmly setting yourself up the arbiter of what qualifies as being "faithful".  Certainly the word faithful has meaning.  But are your paragraphs of definitions on it the agreed upon standard that all should use?  Was that from some canonized LDS scripture I'm unaware of?  

 

And remember what started this...  You claimed that there were zero faithful Mormons that believed same-sex temple marriage was doctrinally possible.  Possible.  Not "forgone conclusion" or "needs to happen and happen now".  Just possible.  

 

In attempting to shake off the fallacy I laid on you, you are now confirming the harsher accusation that you are declaring people unfaithful that disagree with your position.

 

Fallacy or no... Grandpa was re-defining what it means to be a Scotsman.  You are re-defining what it means to be faithful.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell, there is not much to comprehend.

 

Here is what I comprehend:

 

In an attempt to justify your use of a fallacy, you demonstrated that YOU regard YOURSELF as the one who gets to determine anothers Faithfulness. You have not helped your cause.

Call for references, please.

Where did I say that?

And -- try to be civil, this time.

[Russell C McGregor]

This is absolutely fantastic!  Thanks for making this its own thread.

 

Tonie is correct in his assessment of your post.  You have argued your way out of the No True Scotsman fallacy... maybe... I need to look back at what you officially said in the old thread... but I'll grant it to you now because this is even better.  

 

You're more firmly setting yourself up the arbiter of what qualifies as being "faithful".  Certainly the word faithful has meaning.  But are your paragraphs of definitions on it the agreed upon standard that all should use?  Was that from some canonized LDS scripture I'm unaware of?

Well, you tell me, Brian: which of those paragraphs do you take issue with?

Fallacy or no... Grandpa was re-defining what it means to be a Scotsman.  You are re-defining what it means to be faithful.

Re-defining?

Really?

Where?

[Russell C McGregor]

As a British patriot loyal to the crown. Do you have any evidence of anyone anywhere claiming that Arnold was an American patriot after his betrayal? If not your analogy is really strained.

But Arnold was an American; a Connecticut Yankee, in fact. It was "in his DNA," right?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But Arnold was an American; a Connecticut Yankee, in fact. It was "in his DNA," right?

He was certainly an American yankee. Moving the goal post much? Care to answer the question posed?

Here's the thing. Any logical person would agree that you are guilty of using the no true Scotsman fallacy. And by logical I mean people who think like me.

[rockpond]

In attempting to shake off the fallacy I laid on you, you are now confirming the harsher accusation that you are declaring people unfaithful that disagree with your position.

This. Exactly.

Of course, Pahoran/Russell wasn't satisfied with just declaring me (and those who think similarly) unfaithful. He tried to illustrate our unfaithfulness with a comparison that was so hideous he got himself "permanently" banned from the boards.

[Brian 2.0]

Well, you tell me, Brian: which of those paragraphs do you take issue with?

 

I take issue with your claim that started this whole thread:  Your claim that there is no faithful mormon that believes same-sex temple marriage is even doctrinally possible.  I take issue with your standard that one is "unfaithful" if he/she believe same-sex temple marriage is doctrinally possible.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Russel,  how much activity into support of same-sex issues qualifies one as unfaithful?

 

You've stated that people who think same-sex temple marriage is doctrinally possible are unfaithful.  How about people that support same-sex marriage as being legal in this country?  Still faithful?

 

How about people that actively support the cause of legalizing same-sex marriage by peacefully protesting, donating money, and proselytizing about it?  Still faithful?

 

How about a parent who support their gay son's decision to get married and pays for the wedding?  Still faithful?

 

How about a parent who doesn't believe their gay son's actions are frowned upon by God?  Still faithful?

 

How about a practicing married homosexual of the church who believe his actions are wrong, but still acts that way, yet believes/attends/acts otherwise as the faithful heterosexual man next to him in the pews?  Still faithful?

 

How about a practicing married homosexual of the church who doesn't believe his actions are wrong, but doesn't lobby or push for change and is quiet and private on the matter?  Still faithful?

 

How about a practicing married homosexual of the church who doesn't believe his actions are wrong but does push for change urging the brethren to reconsider their options?  Still faithful?

 

......

 

You've written paragraphs on it already, I'm sure you can add these question to it to help us clarify.

 

Where exactly is line of faithful vs. unfaithful in regards to one's belief on same-sex marriage?