No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Bernard Gui]

Yes the good old get out of jail free card of Jacob 2...

Then why the need for the article on marriage in the 1835 D&C?

It's so much more than a "get out of jail free card."

[jwhitlock]

The Lord calls adultery a sin as well and commanded monogamy in the 1835 D&C yet a few years later Jospeh said God can command and revok and according to Joseph he had done just that regrading plural wives. Later the practice was suspended even though the LDS leaders including Wilford Woodruff said the church would never give it up.

So let's be blunt.....the LDS church has a history of change. While I do not think that same sex marriage will ever be accepted by the church it certainly COULD happen. And someone can personally hope for that and still be faithful. Just to you and Russell know....

 

Oversimplification - and invalid conclusions - concerning the complex practice of polygamy, and why the church gave it up. But of course, we can just ignore the rest of the details and take your word about how it really all happened.

 

Not.

 

The Bible details a history of change in God's dealings with His people. Are you that naive that you think the church should never change if it were true, or that things changing is a sign that it's not?

[jwhitlock]

First let's set the record straight. I am LDS. Even though I am now a filthy apostate I spent my entire adult life as faithful as you or any other defender in this board and I was a defender at one point as well. So guess what?....I know how you think and operate.

 

 

 

You've spent your entire adult life as a faithful member of the church - and now you're an apostate? Is being an apostate what comes after adulthood?

[Brian 2.0]

You've spent your entire adult life as a faithful member of the church - and now you're an apostate? Is being an apostate what comes after adulthood?

Aren't you supposed to put away childish things at some point.

Only joking.

[mfbukowski]

Eh?

I've looked back through his posts. (Not all of them, of course, but the recent ones.) I don't see any red scrawls saying kind things like "You're outta here!" While he tweaked me a few times, I saw nothing I could call offensive; and, hand on heart, I haven't reported him to the mods (nor even thought about it.) So where on earth did that come from?

I have no clue and he was making significant progress in coming back to the church.

 

I can find no reason that this should be done.  It probably was some kind of error which will be corrected

Edited May 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

The Bible details a history of change in God's dealings with His people. Are you that naive that you think the church should never change if it were true, or that things changing is a sign that it's not?

 

Amen.  I guess we're not as far apart as it might seem.

[Bernard Gui]

Would this thread expose some participants to prosecution in Canada?

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do#_Toc408212165

Edited May 4, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

Not really. This thread is not about whether gay marriage if a logical/consistent possibility. This thread is about whether believing LDS gay marriage is possible at some future point makes you an unfaithful saint.

I would agree with Rockpond. I would say that someone could be both a faithful saint and also believe that LDS gay marriage could one day be possible, through revelation. Whether that person's view is logical or not is a whole other matter.

I say that as someone who has no need or desire to get Russel's endorsement of my faithfulness or otherwise.

And neither do I- I don't know him.

 

I think faithful Saints get to make mistakes and believe things which could never possibly be doctrinal and consistent with present doctrine.   I don't know where that puts me in the fight-

 

But I do not see a way this could happen without basic fundamental cornerstone doctrines changing.  Obviously it would have to happen by "revelation" but let me tell you that if it does, I better have a testimony of it- as in all principles of the gospel, or it could be a deal breaker for me.

 

But who knows- maybe I will pull a Bruce R and repudiate my previous positions.   One thing I can promise myself is that I must have a testimony that I was wrong by my own revelation

 

It has happened before, it could happen again,  But without a personal revelation I am out.

 

I got in by personal revelation and I would get out by just the same process.  At this point, I think it is the wrong path for the church should they go that way- ie toward ssm

Edited May 4, 2015 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

There are actions that God has declared sinful.

A person's race has not been proscribed by God as a sinful action.

There are no actions exclusive to black people that have been judged sinful.

This cannot be truthfully said about homosexual actions.

The only way to allow ssm in the temple would be to declare ss actions not sinful.

Restricting interracial marriages in the temple is not the same as not allowing ssm in the temple.

I recall many fervent prayers that God would lift the ban.

It seems presumptuous to pray God to make sin to be righteousness.

I don't understand the recent essay to be a "repudiation" of the Priesthood ban.

Interesting analogy.

Two gay people don't choose to be gay, they choose whether to act on those feelings by marrying.

A mixed-race couple don't choose to be the race they were born as, but they do choose whether to act on those feelings by marrying.

In 1800s and right through the majority of the 20th century the church taught that inter-racial marriage was against God's doctrine with all sorts of negative rhetoric. That doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage) has now been disavowed.

I'm not surprised you and many others refuse to see the similarities, but there are several.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Making such a statement means you have to dismiss the fact that the Lord regards homosexual behavior as a sin, without regard to whether it's in a claimed marriage or not. That's been made clear, and yet you seem to think it's not important. However, as long as it is a sin, then performing a SS sealing would be a desecration of the temple.

 

Those "hoping" for such desecration have only tap danced around that particular sinful elephant.

 

I get it. I really do. You really, truly, firmly, strongly, with every fiber of your being believe that the Lord regards homosexual behavior as a sin. A small minority of active, temple recommend holding, believing latter-day saints disagree with you. Just as I suppose a small minority of active, temple recommend holding, believing latter-day saints disagreed with President George Albert Smith's characterization of inter-racial marriages.

 

So let's be blunt. A faithful member of the church does not hope for a redefinition of sin to validate his or her worldly viewpoint.

Of course they wouldn't. They hope to have their gay brothers and sisters joined in same sex sealings because they honestly believe in their heart of hearts that is what God wants. They come to this belief after study prayer and fasting. So again the question for you jwhitlock is whether is one errant heart-felt belief disqualifies them as a faithful latter-day saint.

 

Unlike poorly thought out attempts to compare SSM to the church's stand on blacks and the priesthood, there has never been any indication that this particular sinful behavior will ever be acceptable to the Lord. He has made that abundantly clear. Those who "hope" for a change are doing nothing more than desiring that the church change to conform to the ways of the world. That doesn't sound particularly faithful to me.

Your description is uncharitable. As Paul stated, we see through a glass darkly. Your fellow saints that err in this manner are honestly seeking the will of the Lord, but on this point (according to the you and the Elders of the church) do not yet see clearly. That they hold one heretical viewpoint does not negate they rest of their lives.

I get that a hope for (revelation approved) same sex sealings is a heresy in the church. As such this particular view can rightly be described as unfaithful (just like evolution, Adam God, lack of a literal Adam and Eve, belief in an Old Earth, no global flood etc). I get that you and Russell view this particular heresy as exceptional - that is you believe that one can not be a faithful Latter-day Saint and believe in this particular heresy. There are 12 pages of this thread showing this.

What you and anyone else has utterly failed to do is show any official backing for this position of yours. Last I checked, this was not your Church it was God's. Last I checked you were not responsible for speaking for the Church, the Brethren were. The brethren have laid out standards for faithfulness in the temple recommend questions. Laying additional qualifications beyond that is very anti-Mormon in my opinion. Joseph Smith once remarked that the Methodists "have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

Edited May 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

 

What you and anyone else has utterly failed to do is show any official backing for this position of yours. Last I checked, this was not your Church it was God's. Last I checked you were not responsible for speaking for the Church, the Brethren were. The brethren have laid out standards for faithfulness in the temple recommend questions. Laying additional qualifications beyond that is very anti-Mormon in my opinion. Joseph Smith once remarked that the Methodists "have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

 

Please point out where anyone on this thread has claimed that they were speaking for the church or demanding additional qualifications for temple recommends.

 

You won't find any, though I'm sure you'll try hard to infer that from what I've posted.

 

On the other hand, those more enlightened members you are so fond of are hoping and even demanding that the church change its definition of sin and allow SS sealings.

 

Where have Russel or I or anyone else opposed to SSM demanded that the church make changes according to our viewpoints?

 

I'll be waiting.

[toon]

As an informal fallacy, the "no true Scotsman" is not a logical fallacy and is not necessarily incorrect.  Without something else, however, it just might not be that persuasive.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Please point out where anyone on this thread has claimed that they were speaking for the church or demanding additional qualifications for temple recommends.

 

The whole point of this thread is to determine whether or not "faithful" as a descriptor attached to the noun "Latter-day Saint" inherently excludes any "Latter-day Saint" who "wishes" to see further light and knowledge revealed to the prophet that would allow for same-sex sealings. Are we agreed on this point? (From the OP: "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple")

In order to determine whether or not this statement is in error we need to know what the definition of the word faithful is and whether or not Russell is arbitrarily defining it:

From the OP:

The No True Scotsman fallacy consists of changing a definition to become a tautology.

In order for Russell's position not to be a fallacy he cannot in change the definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" to become a tautology.

So who gets to decide what makes a faithful Latter-day saint? I'd say the Brethren who lead the church. What standard do the brethren use for faithfulness? I would propose that the Temple Recommend interview sets a maximum baseline for who they would consider faithful (i.e. if someone has honestly obtained a temple recommend the brethren would find them to be faithful). I would suspect that the church also would consider faithful those not worthy to attend the temple, but who are actively working on it. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that the brethren are okay with someone who is not a "faithful Latter-day Saint" attending the temple? If you answer no other parts of this post, please at least post your answer to this question.

So here's the problem. The church has laid out a process for determining faithfulness (the temple recommend process). Members of the church who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" have Temple Recommends. So here is the problem for you. I only see a couple of options:

• Members who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" are lying to get temple recommends and lying on message boards when they say that they were upfront with their bishop and SP.
• The church (through its judges in Israel) has declared members faithful who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"
• The church does not consider all those who have honestly obtained a temple recommend as faithful. The church is in fact okay with sending non-faithful Latter-day Saints to the temple. In order to be considered faithful, you also have to meet further (unspecified) requirements.

It seems to me that you fall in camp 3? (please correct me if I am wrong). Implied in the OP, is the assertion that all faithful Latter-day Saints must believe that Same Sex Sealings are sinful (this is the source of Russell's fallacy). Since you claim that you and Russell have not spoken for the church or gone beyond what the church teaches, please find a few quotes from lds.org that all faithful Latter-day Saints must believe that Same Sex Sealings are sinful.

 

On the other hand, those more enlightened members you are so fond of are hoping and even demanding that the church change its definition of sin and allow SS sealings.

 

 

Please also note that your terms bolded above are nuances not present in the OP's assertion that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"

Edited May 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How wonderfully specific of you. You're pretty much onto a winner there. First you refuse to nail down the definition of "profane" and instead refer me to dictionary.com which has no less than seven definitions of the word and then you require an exact wording in your request for sources.

 

Can you show where the prophets have called gay (temple) marriage profane? If not, does that mean they believe it is not profane?

Since you seem to miss this point and Rockpond as well. I am betting other SSM supporters missed it too.

 

That you may understand me now (if indeed you have not understood me before, which would be rather surprising) it is homosexual activities that are profane.

 

How can gay marriage in the temple be a good thing if the primary activity they (homosexual couples) will be engaging in, is profane?

 

Because you cannot find a comment from GA's specific to gay marriage in the temple, that is some admission that they recognize it as good (eg not profane) is a a colossal stretch.

 

Since the act by its self is profane there is no reason to comment on other aspects that include it, something he that needs to be commanded to do all things comes to mind.

 

I am surprised that any one even needs this pointed out to them, let alone seeming intelligent people.

[Brian 2.0]

I think it's fair to say that under current Mormon doctrines and policy:

 

1)  Homosexual acts are considered profane

2)  An unauthorized Homosexual sealing performed in the temple today would be considered profaning the temple

 

I think those facts are hard to fight against and I'm not sure anyone is.  Are they?

[cinepro]

And guess what else.. And let's be blunt again since you see me you like that....all you are doing is back peddling from something you don't like.

 

 

Watch those homonyms....

 

Interestingly, I just saw the reverse mistake made with that same word in this LA Times editorial.  What are the odds?

Edited May 4, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, that's what I thought, too.  He started out a bit rough, but was becoming a good contributor.  Sigh.

I can only venture a guess here, but I recall that in one of his earlier posts, he alluded to having been banned before ("purge" I think was the word he used). Or am I mistaking him for someone else?

 

At any rate, I don't think the mods take kindly to a once-banned person re-registering and coming back on with a difference screen name. Not without authorization, that is.

[jwhitlock]

 

The whole point of this thread is to determine whether or not "faithful" as a descriptor attached to the noun "Latter-day Saint" inherently excludes any "Latter-day Saint" who "wishes" to see further light and knowledge revealed to the prophet that would allow for same-sex sealings. Are we agreed on this point? (From the OP: "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple")

In order to determine whether or not this statement is in error we need to know what the definition of the word faithful is and whether or not Russell is arbitrarily defining it:

From the OP:

In order for Russell's position not to be a fallacy he cannot in change the definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" to become a tautology.

So who gets to decide what makes a faithful Latter-day saint? I'd say the Brethren who lead the church. What standard do the brethren use for faithfulness? I would propose that the Temple Recommend interview sets a maximum baseline for who they would consider faithful (i.e. if someone has honestly obtained a temple recommend the brethren would find them to be faithful). I would suspect that the church also would consider faithful those not worthy to attend the temple, but who are actively working on it. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that the brethren are okay with someone who is not a "faithful Latter-day Saint" attending the temple? If you answer no other parts of this post, please at least post your answer to this question.

So here's the problem. The church has laid out a process for determining faithfulness (the temple recommend process). Members of the church who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" have Temple Recommends. So here is the problem for you. I only see a couple of options:

• Members who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" are lying to get temple recommends and lying on message boards when they say that they were upfront with their bishop and SP.
• The church (through its judges in Israel) has declared members faithful who "wish to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"
• The church does not consider all those who have honestly obtained a temple recommend as faithful. The church is in fact okay with sending non-faithful Latter-day Saints to the temple. In order to be considered faithful, you also have to meet further (unspecified) requirements.

It seems to me that you fall in camp 3? (please correct me if I am wrong). Implied in the OP, is the assertion that all faithful Latter-day Saints must believe that Same Sex Sealings are sinful (this is the source of Russell's fallacy). Since you claim that you and Russell have not spoken for the church or gone beyond what the church teaches, please find a few quotes from lds.org that all faithful Latter-day Saints must believe that Same Sex Sealings are sinful.

 

 

 

Please also note that your terms bolded above are nuances not present in the OP's assertion that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"

 

 

Quite a convoluted piece of sophistry, there. Still, despite your tenuous conclusions, we haven't stated that we're speaking for the church and we haven't demanded the changes you claim we have.

 

A wasted post, in other words.

 

Perhaps you can, in turn, point to where the church has stated that they support SSM and want sealings of gay couples to occur in the temple.

 

Then, you can explain away the multitude of statements from the church opposing SSM and defining homosexual behavior as sin.

 

And lastly, you can explain how someone who has a "hope" that is in clear opposition to what the Lord and His prophets have consistently stated over time is somehow being just as faithful as anyone else.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Quite a convoluted piece of sophistry, there. Still, despite your tenuous conclusions, we haven't stated that we're speaking for the church and we haven't demanded the changes you claim we have.

 

A wasted post, in other words.

I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to my assertion here:

The brethren have laid out standards for faithfulness in the temple recommend questions. Laying additional qualifications beyond that is very anti-Mormon in my opinion.

Engage or not. It seems like maybe I struck a nerve? I'd love to know whether you think the church approves of non-faithful latter-day Saints attending the Temple. If you think the church is okay with non-faithful saints attending, what other standard do the brethren use to determine faithfulness? This seems to be at the heart of the issue. If you think the brethren are fine with non-faithful Latter-day saints attending the temple, I will grant that you are not attempting to modify the temple recommend process. So what is it? Why is it a hard question to answer?

 

Perhaps you can, in turn, point to where the church has stated that they support SSM and want sealings of gay couples to occur in the temple.

 

Then, you can explain away the multitude of statements from the church opposing SSM and defining homosexual behavior as sin.

It would be nice (for you) if the thread was about this but it isn't. It would be even nicer if I had at any point ever said that the church supports SSM and wants sealings to occur, but I didn't. I don't need to explain anything away, because as I have stated multiple times I completely agree with you (are we even reading the same thread?) I 100% agree with you that the Church views all homosexual activity in and out of same sex marriages to be a sin.

 

And lastly, you can explain how someone who has a "hope" that is in clear opposition to what the Lord and His prophets have consistently stated over time is somehow being just as faithful as anyone else.

This is the wrong question. It's not about being "as faithful" as anyone else. Did you read the OP? Russell stated that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple." He didn't state that such a position was less faithful. He categorically denied that such a person could exist.

But to answer your question, I will quote what I have already added in a post that you replied to:

As Paul stated, we see through a glass darkly. Your fellow saints that err in this manner are honestly seeking the will of the Lord, but on this point (according to the you and the Elders of the church) do not yet see clearly. That they hold one heretical viewpoint does not negate they rest of their lives.

Edited May 4, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

I think it's fair to say that under current Mormon doctrines and policy:

 

1)  Homosexual acts are considered profane

2)  An unauthorized Homosexual sealing performed in the temple today would be considered profaning the temple

 

I think those facts are hard to fight against and I'm not sure anyone is.  Are they?

I think not.

 

As usual, it's all about words and linguistic confusions. 

[Brian 2.0]

I think not.

 

As usual, it's all about words and linguistic confusions. 

 

You're right.  I guess I could say more precisely... the vast majority in the church can look at current Mormon doctrines and policies and would label those actions with their definition of "profane."  

 

Whether that is useful is another question.

[jwhitlock]

I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to my assertion here:

 

That's exactly what I was responding to. Your claim that we were trying to set ourselves up in the official capacity of judges for the church was simply false on your part.

Engage or not. It seems like maybe I struck a nerve? I'd love to know whether you think the church approves of non-faithful latter-day Saints attending the Temple. If you think the church is okay with non-faithful saints attending, what other standard do the brethren use to determine faithfulness? This seems to be at the heart of the issue. If you think the brethren are fine with non-faithful Latter-day saints attending the temple, I will grant that you are not attempting to modify the temple recommend process. So what is it? Why is it a hard question to answer?

 

You're dodging my response. You've claimed specifically that we were speaking for the church and wanted to make changes to the temple recommend process. That was a fabrication on your part; now you're off on a tangent about as saying that they shouldn't attend the temple. Since we never made that claim, I'm not going to bother responding to your strawman on this.

 

 

It would be nice (for you) if the thread was about this but it isn't. It would be even nicer if I had at any point ever said that the church supports SSM and wants sealings to occur, but I didn't. I don't need to explain anything away, because as I have stated multiple times I completely agree with you (are we even reading the same thread?) I 100% agree with you that the Church views all homosexual activity in and out of same sex marriages to be a sin.

 

You're the one making accusations about things we've never said. That's your problem, not mine. 

This is the wrong question. It's not about being "as faithful" as anyone else. Did you read the OP? Russell stated that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple." He didn't state that such a position was less faithful. He categorically denied that such a person could exist.

 

That's your viewpoint. Evidently you don't really understand Mormonspeak, since we use terms such as "less-active". Less-faithful would be a valid term and is not precluded by what Russell stated.

 

However, I see how it's to your advantage to claim a black and white one way or the other, even though it doesn't accurately reflect what was posted.

But to answer your question, I will quote what I have already added in a post that you replied to:

 

So everyone who disagrees with the official church position on SSM is actually an honest seeker after the will of the Lord?  Hogwash.

[canard78]

I think it's fair to say that under current Mormon doctrines and policy:

1) Homosexual acts are considered profane

2) An unauthorized Homosexual sealing performed in the temple today would be considered profaning the temple

I think those facts are hard to fight against and I'm not sure anyone is. Are they?

Mola Roma an answer to your post too.

I completely agree. We can certainly infer that gay marriage in the temple would be considered profane. I don't dispute that at all. The point of my post was that I was asked to provide an exact quote showing that prophets considered mixed race marriage to be profane. I was illustrating that just because there's no exact quote saying gay marriage is profane doesn't mean prophets don't teach that it is. The same applies, quite clearly, to the past prophets teaching about mixed race marriage.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm sorry, I thought you were responding to my assertion here:

 

That's exactly what I was responding to. Your claim that we were trying to set ourselves up in the official capacity of judges for the church was simply false on your part.

Engage or not. It seems like maybe I struck a nerve? I'd love to know whether you think the church approves of non-faithful latter-day Saints attending the Temple. If you think the church is okay with non-faithful saints attending, what other standard do the brethren use to determine faithfulness? This seems to be at the heart of the issue. If you think the brethren are fine with non-faithful Latter-day saints attending the temple, I will grant that you are not attempting to modify the temple recommend process. So what is it? Why is it a hard question to answer?

 

You're dodging my response. You've claimed specifically that we were speaking for the church and wanted to make changes to the temple recommend process. That was a fabrication on your part; now you're off on a tangent about as saying that they shouldn't attend the temple. Since we never made that claim, I'm not going to bother responding to your strawman on this.

 

 

It would be nice (for you) if the thread was about this but it isn't. It would be even nicer if I had at any point ever said that the church supports SSM and wants sealings to occur, but I didn't. I don't need to explain anything away, because as I have stated multiple times I completely agree with you (are we even reading the same thread?) I 100% agree with you that the Church views all homosexual activity in and out of same sex marriages to be a sin.

 

You're the one making accusations about things we've never said. That's your problem, not mine.

This is the wrong question. It's not about being "as faithful" as anyone else. Did you read the OP? Russell stated that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple." He didn't state that such a position was less faithful. He categorically denied that such a person could exist.

 

That's your viewpoint. Evidently you don't really understand Mormonspeak, since we use terms such as "less-active". Less-faithful would be a valid term and is not precluded by what Russell stated.

 

However, I see how it's to your advantage to claim a black and white one way or the other, even though it doesn't accurately reflect what was posted.

But to answer your question, I will quote what I have already added in a post that you replied to:

 

So everyone who disagrees with the official church position on SSM is actually an honest seeker after the will of the Lord?  Hogwash.

Fair enough. I have apparently misread your intent and offer my apologies. I regret that I implied otherwise as that was not your intent.

I must admit I have no idea now what this thread is about. The OP is based on the premise that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple."

Since you are not trying to judge anyone or add new content to the temple recommend, I genuinely request your thoughts on the following:

In our church of nearly 15 million, there are some Latter-day Saints who looking through their glass darkly who have come to wish (after much prayer and study) that one day the Lord reveal further light and knowledge to his prophets that would allow for same sex temple sealings. These people recognize this is a heresy, but as it is an honest belief, they do not deny how they feel. These people are paying tithing, and serving in the church. They are giving of their substance to the poor. These people have been completely open and honest with their bishops and stake presidents and answer honestly on all of the temple recommend questions. The judges of Israel responsible for these people have pronounced that these Latter-day Saints are faithful and worthy of serving in the house of the Lord. (Note I realize that this description does not describe all Mormons who support same-sex marriage. I speak only of those who fit this mold. Since the OP was stated in the broadest possible terms, I only have to show one faithful latter-day saint to refute it). These are the facts that I enter into evidence.

The opening post, which you applauded, states that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple." You have clarified that you are not setting up yourself as a Judge and you are not telling the church to do anything. My sincere and honest question for you, is what exactly is it you are doing then? The statement "No faithful Latter-day Saint" does not have any qualifiers on it. Language has meaning. As has been pointed out to you, this statement is the exact equivalent (Per Philosophy of Logic 101) of saying any Latter-day Saint that wishes for gay marriage in the temple is not faithful.

Since judges in Israel disagree with your assessment, and you have not provided a source from lds.org to back the assertion that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" what exactly is your purpose here?

Again, I am being as sincere as I can in seeking understanding. I actually hate the moniker I chose since I rarely live up to it and it is a constant reminder of my short comings.

Peace,

John

[jwhitlock]

Fair enough. I have apparently misread your intent and offer my apologies. I regret that I implied otherwise as that was not your intent.

I must admit I have no idea now what this thread is about. The OP is based on the premise that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple."

Since you are not trying to judge anyone or add new content to the temple recommend, I genuinely request your thoughts on the following:

In our church of nearly 15 million, there are some Latter-day Saints who looking through their glass darkly who have come to wish (after much prayer and study) that one day the Lord reveal further light and knowledge to his prophets that would allow for same sex temple sealings. These people recognize this is a heresy, but as it is an honest belief, they do not deny how they feel. These people are paying tithing, and serving in the church. They are giving of their substance to the poor. These people have been completely open and honest with their bishops and stake presidents and answer honestly on all of the temple recommend questions. The judges of Israel responsible for these people have pronounced that these Latter-day Saints are faithful and worthy of serving in the house of the Lord. (Note I realize that this description does not describe all Mormons who support same-sex marriage. I speak only of those who fit this mold. Since the OP was stated in the broadest possible terms, I only have to show one faithful latter-day saint to refute it). These are the facts that I enter into evidence.

The opening post, which you applauded, states that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple." You have clarified that you are not setting up yourself as a Judge and you are not telling the church to do anything. My sincere and honest question for you, is what exactly is it you are doing then? The statement "No faithful Latter-day Saint" does not have any qualifiers on it. Language has meaning. As has been pointed out to you, this statement is the exact equivalent (Per Philosophy of Logic 101) of saying any Latter-day Saint that wishes for gay marriage in the temple is not faithful.

Since judges in Israel disagree with your assessment, and you have not provided a source from lds.org to back the assertion that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" what exactly is your purpose here?

Again, I am being as sincere as I can in seeking understanding. I actually hate the moniker I chose since I rarely live up to it and it is a constant reminder of my short comings.

Peace,

John

 

Virtually everything you ask has been covered and answered in this thread. I'll try my best to consolidate at least my thoughts into one post, and then I'm probably going to be done.

 

Members of the church are, despite outsider's impressions, a rather diverse and opinionated group. They hold opinions and views about things that conflict with other members' views. Often, those conflicts are over things that in reality aren't that important. It doesn't affect anyone's salvation if those opinions differ. Things like evolution, a literal flood, the age of the earth, the real nature of the Adam and Eve story (aside from the actual fall), where the Ten Tribes are, etc., etc. are hotly debated at times, but if one side of any of these became official church doctrine, it wouldn't rock the foundations of faith for most people. We just don't know enough about them, and what we do know is mostly speculative.

 

I don't worry about differing opinions on those things. They really don't matter that much right now in the bigger scheme of me working out my salvation. They can be interesting to discuss, but that's it.

 

On the other hand, there are other opinions on change that, if they occurred, would rock the very foundations of the church. The core truth claims of the church would be called into question because those changes would eliminate or severely change foundational doctrines that have been the bedrock of the church. These would include things like the church saying that the Book of Mormon is not really based on an authentic ancient record from gold plates, that Joseph was not really a prophet called of God (but rather just a well meaning individual), that polygamy was not a revelation, but an aberration, that the temples are now open to anyone without a recommend (non-members included), that the ordinances are optional, that marriage is now optional and people can live together if they want to. Any of those things happening would have an incredible domino effect that would be devastating to the church and most of its members.

 

The church accepting SSM and SS sealings in the temple is also one of those things.

 

Accepting SS sealings would call into question some very basic tenets of the church. Faithful members of the church would have, in effect, the rug pulled out from under them. The credibility of the leaders of the church would be significantly damaged. The very definition of what sin is would be called into question.

 

Whenever I hear of members of the church espousing such radical changes in the church, it's no longer a matter of just having conflicting opinions. It's wanting something that attacks the very foundations of the church.

 

Perhaps some members who support SS sealings haven't really thought through the impact of what that change would entail, or what would be called into question about the church. I see the same thing happening with those who want women to have the priesthood, though that is a far more nuanced issue in many ways. SSM is rather black and white in comparison.

 

I get really troubled when attempts are made to compare SSM to the priesthood change that occurred in 1978. There was a great deal of opinion about blacks in the priesthood, and much of it reflected the cultural influences of the time. However, there was also always the understanding that it would someday change. We didn't know when or how, but we knew it would change. And when that change happened in 1978 there was an incredible outpouring of joy from the great majority of members of the church, and most people started the process of adjusting to that unexpected and wonderful change rather quickly. President Kimball termed it the long awaited day, and it was that indeed.

 

In comparison, there has never been any promise of SSM being accepted by the church, nor of SS sealings being done in the temple. There is no expectation of that by most members of the church, since it is well understood that homosexual behavior has been defined by the Lord and His prophets consistently as a sin. If that were to change, the reaction would be very, very different than it was in 1978. The great majority of members of the church would be confused and frustrated. The leaders of the church and the basic tenets of the church would be called into question by a very large number of members of the church. It would not be a day of joy, but a day of upheaval.

 

There are certain things in the church that will not and cannot change because of the foundational impact they would have.

 

I'm not sure how well that is understood by some people who want such changes in the church. To many of us, those types of changes are unthinkable. They are part of our basic testimonies of the restored gospel. Evolution, the flood, or whatever isn't part of my basic testimony. The nature of sin and of the atonement and eternal families and prophetic guidance are part of my testimony.

 

So the main question is this: if a member wants foundational changes in church doctrines or practices that the Lord and His prophets have been very consistent and clear about, what is that member really telling us? There are plenty of people outside the church that would love to see those same foundational changes occur, because they know precisely what the effect would be on the church. Why would a faithful member of the church even want to go there?

 

Finally, to address directly the temple recommend process, it really mostly entails some self-introspection on the part of the individual being interviewed. The questions don't ask about specific beliefs or opinions; they ask whether you sustain the First Presidency and the Apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. They ask whether you affiliate with groups or individuals whose agendas oppose the church. It's up to each individual to determine whether he or she is being honest in answering those questions. The church itself doesn't vouch for the faithfulness of a member in giving them a recommend. They assume you're answering honestly unless proven otherwise, but it is not an endorsement of the church about what kind of a person you actually are.

 

There is an inherent conflict between a member of the church claiming that God has told them through the Spirit that SS sealings should be done in the temple and are right, and prophetic leaders of the church telling us that it isn't right. If I get an impression that is in conflict with the clear revealed will of the Lord, then I need to go back and figure out what's going on. That's what being faithful is all about. It's the process of submitting to the Lord step by step and that includes giving due consideration to what our prophets are unitedly telling us on these matters. It involves me taking my own opinions and evaluating them in the light of what God is tell me, what the scriptures say, what the prophets are saying, and what the world is doing (I'll tend to go in the opposite direction, there).

 

Anyway, that's it. I don't have to judge other people's membership in the church (which is good), but I can make judgments on things that are fundamentally inconsistent with what the church stands for, such as SSM and SS sealings.