No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Russell C McGregor]

You did with your expansion of the questions in the post I quoted.

I didn't expand them. I simply described what they mean, to anyone who's making a good faith effort to understand them.

You've also set yourself up as the arbiter of who is a faithful Latter-day Saint.

You are mistaken. I simply call it as I see it.

You are guilty of the same thing you accuse Dehlin of doing -- you're just at the opposite end of the spectrum. That may make you feel like you are just being extra righteous

I never thought of that.

I wonder why you did?

but it still puts you out of sync with the Brethren (what you accuse me of being). So maybe we're all not that different.

How many of the Brethren do you suppose would disagree that the TR questions should be answered honestly?

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

When it comes to that, there are similarities between any two things you care to name; the question is whether the similarities are more important than the differences.

Please note that if something is "banned," then there are consequences for breaching the ban. What were the consequences for entering into a mixed-race marriage? I'm not talking about rhetoric, however strongly worded, that was never acted upon, but actual consequences. Who was ever excommunicated for marrying a person of another race? What bishop or other church officer was ever released for solemnizing such a marriage?

I put it to you that there were none.

And thus, your insistence upon "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage)" looks suspiciously like an attempt to load the dice and make the similarities look stronger than they really are.

Which, in turn, looks like a tacit admission that the similarities aren't as great as you'd like them to be.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

How many of the Brethren do you suppose would disagree that the TR questions should be answered honestly?

Is it your position that anyone that obtains a temple recommend while at the same time wishes for same sex dealings is being dishonest? Including those that discuss their position on this topic with their bishop?

[rockpond]

I didn't expand them. I simply described what they mean, to anyone who's making a good faith effort to understand them.

You are mistaken. I simply call it as I see it.

I never thought of that.

I wonder why you did?

How many of the Brethren do you suppose would disagree that the TR questions should be answered honestly?

Zero. And I'm not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you really going to argue with me about a topic upon which I am paid to provide expert testimony in a court of law?

Oh, an appeal to authority, how fallacious of you.

 

Yes, I am going to challenge you.

 

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill, ig,"pretty gross". That is really were I take umbrage.

 

In the end I really don't care what you have to say. For some reason you have come back to the board with an attitude, one that you did no used to have. This is now the 2nd time I have gotten into a conversation that is a waste of time, it will be the last.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ttribe]

Oh, an appeal to authority, how fallacious of you.

 

Yes, I am going to challenge you.

 

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill for reason I have already explained.

Perhaps you should read the responses I gave to Bro. Whitlock first. Furthermore, it isn't fallacious to appeal to one's own authority when you are qualified to speak with said authority.

[Russell C McGregor]

Is it your position that anyone that obtains a temple recommend while at the same time wishes for same sex dealings is being dishonest? Including those that discuss their position on this topic with their bishop?

I suggest you go back and read my post again.

It didn't say anything about "same sex dealings." I talked about what a particular question means, and what a person is representing about himself when he answers it.

Here's another such question: Do you sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer and revelator, and the only person on earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys?

(From memory.)

An honest interviewee understands "prophet, seer and revelator" as divine appointments, "priesthood" as divine authority, and that the question refers to President Monson's divine calling. It means, in effect, "Do you recognise President Monson as God's actual appointed representative on earth?"

The Dehlinite prevarication pretends that the question refers only to institutional titles and responsibilities, and is functionally equivalent to, "Do you recognise Mr Monson as chairman and CEO of the Church organisation?"

So, let's "seek understanding" about this issue: do you believe it is honest to pretend to answer the question as the bishop understands it, when one is privately thinking about it in completely different terms -- and knowingly doing so?

 

This particular strand is about the extent to which a Temple Recommend certifies the holder as a faithful Latter-day Saint; to which I say, yes it does, but only to the extent that it was obtained, and is held, in good faith.  Do you disagree?

 

And the larger point about it -- and the point on which it is relevant to the topic of this thread -- is this: does the possession of a Temple Recommend somehow sanctify the views of the holder, even if, by any objective standard, those views are clearly apostate and contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?

 

Because that's the only reason this has come up.

 

If people advocating radically counter-orthodox views did not insist on defending those views by appealing to their own impeccably faithful and orthodox credentials, nobody would be questioning those credentials.

 

At least, I certainly wouldn't be.

[ALarson]

And the larger point about it -- and the point on which it is relevant to the topic of this thread -- is this: does the possession of a Temple Recommend somehow sanctify the views of the holder, even if, by any objective standard, those views are clearly apostate and contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?

The temple recommend holder seems to be a topic of a few threads here (and how they are "able to" answer the questions in the interview honestly and remain temple worthy).

 

I haven't followed all of this thread, so forgive me if this has been answered.  But, are you referring to members who are in favor of allowing or legalizing gay marriage?   Are those the members you feel are clearly apostate, contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?  

Edited May 6, 2015 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................  

......................................................................members who are in favor of allowing or legalizing gay marriage?   Are those the members you feel are clearly apostate, contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?  

Does LDS doctrine tell us what the secular law should be in those instances?  Is it all right for secular law to legalize polygamy?  There a number of countries (primarily Islamic) in which it is legal.  If a Mormon is tolerant of such laws, but does not practice or believe in those practices, is he an apostate?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The temple recommend holder seems to be a topic of a few threads here (and how they are "able to" answer the questions in the interview honestly and remain temple worthy).

 

I haven't followed all of this thread, so forgive me if this has been answered.  But, are you referring to members who are in favor of allowing or legalizing gay marriage?   Are those the members you feel are clearly apostate, contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?  

Legalizing from a secular stand point. Not really. Lots of things I am for being legal that currently run against church teaching. Drugs being one of them.

Legalizing in terms of SSM in temple sealings. That one is an apostate idea that currently runs against teachings of the church.

[Brian 2.0]

Legalizing from a secular stand point. Not really. Lots of things I am for being legal that currently run against church teaching. Drugs being one of them.

Legalizing in terms of SSM in temple sealings. That one is an apostate idea that currently runs against teachings of the church.

What makes an idea apostate? Where is the line?

Hoping for a revelation that grants women the priesthood?

Hoping for a revelation that eliminates the WOW and tithhing as a temple requirement?

Hoping for a revelation that removes the BoA from the Canon?

Hoping for a revelation that says Polygamy was not from God?

[canard78]

When it comes to that, there are similarities between any two things you care to name; the question is whether the similarities are more important than the differences.

Please note that if something is "banned," then there are consequences for breaching the ban. What were the consequences for entering into a mixed-race marriage? I'm not talking about rhetoric, however strongly worded, that was never acted upon, but actual consequences. Who was ever excommunicated for marrying a person of another race? What bishop or other church officer was ever released for solemnizing such a marriage?

I put it to you that there were none.

And thus, your insistence upon "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage)" looks suspiciously like an attempt to load the dice and make the similarities look stronger than they really are.

Which, in turn, looks like a tacit admission that the similarities aren't as great as you'd like them to be.

I understand why you would desperately want to draw a distinction. From your response it seems that one is a slightly embarrassing but broadly inconsequential footnote in Mormon history while the other is an essential principle of eternal doctrine worth defending at any cost.

I don't see it that way. I see one type of marriage that was taught as being wrong as a matter of doctrine back then (I'm quoting prophets... They used the word doctrine, not me) and I see another type of marriage that is taught as being wrong as a matter of doctrine today.

Would it be any reassurance to consider the very high probability that in 40 years or so (what was it Scott, 39 years tiddly umpty days and wotsit hours?) both Mormon marriage bans will be back on a level pegging: both being slightly embarrassing footnotes in Mormonism changing marital doctrine.

Given how core family and gender is to Mormonism it's somewhat strange that it's the area that seems to have had the greatest flux in doctrine over 180+ years.

- Marry one wife or two?

- Marry other men's wives or not?

- Mixed race marriage is repugnant or is it not?

- Contraception is one of Satan's lies or not?

- The "veneration of the orgasm" is one of the worlds evils or it isn't?

- What's the latest definition of an "unholy/impure practice" within marriage?

- Same sex attraction is a choice or it is not?

- Gay marriage is sin or... Currently there's no "or not." Not yet. Given the track record or all the other ones it's only a matter of time.

[Russell C McGregor]

I understand why you would desperately want to draw a distinction.

That's a canard, canard. I'm not "desperately" doing anything.

The difference between a ban and a non-ban is a matter of fact; there's nothing "desperate" about it.

And it is non-trivial.

So I ask you again: can you support your claim that there was a "ban" on interracial marriage?

Or not?

 

From your response it seems that one is a slightly embarrassing but broadly inconsequential footnote in Mormon history while the other is an essential principle of eternal doctrine worth defending at any cost.

I don't see it that way. I see one type of marriage that was taught as being wrong as a matter of doctrine back then (I'm quoting prophets... They used the word doctrine, not me) and I see another type of marriage that is taught as being wrong as a matter of doctrine today.

And I see that the type of marriage once taught as wrong was always permitted in practice.

Again, this is a non-trivial distinction.

Would it be any reassurance to consider the very high probability that in 40 years or so (what was it Scott, 39 years tiddly umpty days and wotsit hours?) both Mormon marriage bans will be back on a level pegging: both being slightly embarrassing footnotes in Mormonism changing marital doctrine.

"Very high probability" implies some sort of mathematical calculation. Care to produce yours so that we can test it?

Or by "very high probability" did you merely mean to say that it's only what you expect to happen?

Oddly enough, those who are closer to LDS life and teaching than you are, disagree with you. Why do you suppose that might be?

Given how core family and gender is to Mormonism it's somewhat strange that it's the area that seems to have had the greatest flux in doctrine over 180+ years.

- Marry one wife or two?

- Marry other men's wives or not?

- Mixed race marriage is repugnant or is it not?

- Contraception is one of Satan's lies or not?

- The "veneration of the orgasm" is one of the worlds evils or it isn't?

- What's the latest definition of an "unholy/impure practice" within marriage?

- Same sex attraction is a choice or it is not?

- Gay marriage is sin or... Currently there's no "or not." Not yet. Given the track record or all the other ones it's only a matter of time.

Serious thinkers don't lean back in their armchairs and reel off lazy lists without giving any real thought to meaningful distinctions.

Just so you know.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[rockpond]

I suggest you go back and read my post again.

It didn't say anything about "same sex dealings." I talked about what a particular question means, and what a person is representing about himself when he answers it.

Here's another such question: Do you sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer and revelator, and the only person on earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys?

(From memory.)

An honest interviewee understands "prophet, seer and revelator" as divine appointments, "priesthood" as divine authority, and that the question refers to President Monson's divine calling. It means, in effect, "Do you recognise President Monson as God's actual appointed representative on earth?"

The Dehlinite prevarication pretends that the question refers only to institutional titles and responsibilities, and is functionally equivalent to, "Do you recognise Mr Monson as chairman and CEO of the Church organisation?"

So, let's "seek understanding" about this issue: do you believe it is honest to pretend to answer the question as the bishop understands it, when one is privately thinking about it in completely different terms -- and knowingly doing so?

This particular strand is about the extent to which a Temple Recommend certifies the holder as a faithful Latter-day Saint; to which I say, yes it does, but only to the extent that it was obtained, and is held, in good faith. Do you disagree?

And the larger point about it -- and the point on which it is relevant to the topic of this thread -- is this: does the possession of a Temple Recommend somehow sanctify the views of the holder, even if, by any objective standard, those views are clearly apostate and contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?

Because that's the only reason this has come up.

If people advocating radically counter-orthodox views did not insist on defending those views by appealing to their own impeccably faithful and orthodox credentials, nobody would be questioning those credentials.

At least, I certainly wouldn't be.

Once again, you are expanding the TR questions... The same thing you accuse Dehlin of doing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I suggest you go back and read my post again.

It didn't say anything about "same sex dealings." I talked about what a particular question means, and what a person is representing about himself when he answers it.

I understand what you said. I'm trying to understand what any of that has to do with this thread. I asked Mr. Whitlock a similar thing and he wrote up a nice piece but did not mention and failed defend the OP statement of "No faithful latter-day saint..."

Unless you think all members who wish for revelation supported same sex sealings are "John Dehlin boosters" who are lying on their temple recommend interviews in a "Dehlite" fashion, why are you talking about it? Your opening post explicitly stated that no faithful latter-day saint wishes to see same sex sealings.

 

Here's another such question: Do you sustain Thomas S. Monson as prophet, seer and revelator, and the only person on earth authorised to exercise all priesthood keys?

(From memory.)

An honest interviewee understands "prophet, seer and revelator" as divine appointments, "priesthood" as divine authority, and that the question refers to President Monson's divine calling. It means, in effect, "Do you recognise President Monson as God's actual appointed representative on earth?"

The Dehlinite prevarication pretends that the question refers only to institutional titles and responsibilities, and is functionally equivalent to, "Do you recognise Mr Monson as chairman and CEO of the Church organisation?"

So, let's "seek understanding" about this issue: do you believe it is honest to pretend to answer the question as the bishop understands it, when one is privately thinking about it in completely different terms -- and knowingly doing so?

Well I'm not sure that any individual can fully understand how his bishop understands the questions. It is my opinion that an individual should prayerfully approach the questions and if he or she feels unsure, then they should discuss the matter with their bishop. That said, I have no disagreement with your particular interpretation here though. 

 

 

This particular strand is about the extent to which a Temple Recommend certifies the holder as a faithful Latter-day Saint; to which I say, yes it does, but only to the extent that it was obtained, and is held, in good faith.  Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. (Do you notice how I directly answer your questions, yet you fail to answer mine - "Is it your position that anyone that obtains a temple recommend while at the same time wishes for same sex dsealings is being dishonest?")  So again is it your position that   anyone that obtains a temple recommend while at the same time wishes for same sex sealings is being dishonest? It seems logically this must be the case. You have just stated that an individual who obtained and holds a temple recommend in good faith is faithful. And "no faithful latter-day saint..." Therefore no member that wishes for same sex sealings has obtained and held a temple recommend in good faith?

 

And the larger point about it -- and the point on which it is relevant to the topic of this thread -- is this: does the possession of a Temple Recommend somehow sanctify the views of the holder, even if, by any objective standard, those views are clearly apostate and contrary to LDS doctrine and moral standards?

No that's not true at all. Of course a Temple Recommend does not sanctify the views of the holder. I have not seen a single person in this thread or in any other thread defend a position like this (feel free to share a reference if you have one). Clearly a wish for revelation that would approve same sex sealings is heretical (not apostate). What an honestly obtained temple recommend does represent is that a judge in Israel has deemed the individual faithful and worthy to enter the House of the Lord. 

 

 

 Because that's the only reason this has come up.

 

That's not why this has come up. It's come up because you have categorically stated in the OP and other places that any saint who wishes for God to reveal further light to His servant the Prophet regarding same sex sealings cannot be described as a faithful latter-day saint.

 

It has been pointed out to you that many saints who have this wish / hope, have honestly obtained temple recommends after discussing the matter with their bishop and been declared faithful enough to enter into the temple. 

 

 

If people advocating radically counter-orthodox views did not insist on defending those views by appealing to their own impeccably faithful and orthodox credentials, nobody would be questioning those credentials.

 

At least, I certainly wouldn't be.

 

Actually if you didn't call them faithless and apostate, they probably wouldn't bring up the fact that they have a temple recommend in the first place.

Edited May 7, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple.

 

This particular strand is about the extent to which a Temple Recommend certifies the holder as a faithful Latter-day Saint; to which I say, yes it does, but only to the extent that it was obtained, and is held, in good faith.

 

Therefore a Latter-day Saint who wishes* for same-sex sealings cannot in good faith obtain and hold a temple recommend. This is not a saint who is demanding same-sex sealings. Not a saint who is agitating for them. Not even a saint that necessarily thinks it will happen.

 

This is quite the conundrum. We have temple recommend holding members here that wish for revelation allowing same sex sealings. It seems to me that there are just a couple of options here:

1)These members are lying about having temple recommends

2)These members did not obtain a temple recommend in good faith, were not open and honest with their bishop, and used the John Dehlin method to obtain said recommends. 

3)These members are telling the truth about being open with their bishops, but the bishops are making mistakes and granting temple recommends

 

Let me know if I missed any.

 

Note to jwhitlock, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram Suda Ram, Vance, as supporters of both of these statements you guys can jump in here too.

 

*Wishes = feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What makes an idea apostate? Where is the line?

Hoping for a revelation that grants women the priesthood?

Hoping for a revelation that eliminates the WOW and tithhing as a temple requirement?

Hoping for a revelation that removes the BoA from the Canon?

Hoping for a revelation that says Polygamy was not from God?

We have been over this already. Go read what I wrote last time. It's one thing to hope for it. It another to say that in 40 years once we get new blood in there there will be a revelation for gay marriage in the temple.

[rockpond]

We have been over this already. Go read what I wrote last time. It's one thing to hope for it. It another to say that in 40 years once we get new blood in there there will be a revelation for gay marriage in the temple.

 

But according to Russell/Pahoran, just hoping for gay marriage in the temple makes one an unfaithful Latter-day Saint.  That's the assertion that started this "no true scotsman" thread.

[tonie]

But according to Russell/Pahoran, just hoping for gay marriage in the temple makes one an unfaithful Latter-day Saint.  That's the assertion that started this "no true scotsman" thread.

 

If you would just accept that truth that Russell/Pahoran gets to define for everyone what it means to be Faithful and UnFaithful concerning Latter-day Saints, then you would know the truth...and the apparent error of your ways...

[ttribe]

In the end I really don't care what you have to say. For some reason you have come back to the board with an attitude, one that you did no used to have. This is now the 2nd time I have gotten into a conversation that is a waste of time, it will be the last.

 

<--------[confused as to why Mola is so riled up and why the response became so personal]

[Scott Lloyd]

Therefore a Latter-day Saint who wishes* for same-sex sealings cannot in good faith obtain and hold a temple recommend. This is not a saint who is demanding same-sex sealings. Not a saint who is agitating for them. Not even a saint that necessarily thinks it will happen.

 

This is quite the conundrum. We have temple recommend holding members here that wish for revelation allowing same sex sealings. It seems to me that there are just a couple of options here:

1)These members are lying about having temple recommends

2)These members did not obtain a temple recommend in good faith, were not open and honest with their bishop, and used the John Dehlin method to obtain said recommends. 

3)These members are telling the truth about being open with their bishops, but the bishops are making mistakes and granting temple recommends

 

Let me know if I missed any.

 

Note to jwhitlock, Scott Lloyd, Mola Ram Suda Ram, Vance, as supporters of both of these statements you guys can jump in here too.

 

*Wishes = feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.

As my name has been brought into this, I will assume my candid opinion is of some interest here.

 

If I were to find myself harboring an attitude that was so at odds with, so antithetical to, so drastically and diametrically opposed to the settled, firmly established, age-old, orthodox position of the Church of Jesus Christ, I would be gravely concerned and see the need for some serious introspection as to whether it was I, not the Lord nor His servants, that was out of step. I would not be entertaining any fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church. And I definitely would not be agitating for such a thing to happen.

 

And furthermore, the above strikes me as a hallmark of a faithful Latter-day Saint, say what you will about "no true Scotsman" fallacies and such.

[Scott Lloyd]

Would it be any reassurance to consider the very high probability that in 40 years or so (what was it Scott, 39 years tiddly umpty days and wotsit hours?) both Mormon marriage bans will be back on a level pegging: both being slightly embarrassing footnotes in Mormonism changing marital doctrine.

 

It is in fact 39 years, 9 months, 3 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes and 46 seconds.

 

That's nearly three months of elapsed time since we started counting down. Granted, that's not a great deal yet, but you can consult my thread of April general conference quotes to gauge how much little progress has been made toward your hoped-for goal.

 

I doubt I'll be around when the bell rings, but maybe someone here will, and then it can be judged whose prediction was really the "embarrassing footnote."

Edited May 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Vance]

I would not be entertaining any fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church.

It is apparent to me that ANYONE who thinks that this is even possible, is NOT a faithful latter-day saint.  Either the Lord is in control (is now and will continue to be) or He is not.  Anyone who doesn't believe that it is the Lord that is in charge, (I think I can safely say) is NOT a faithful latter-day saint.

 

(Scott,

I do not mean to express or imply that you believe otherwise.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But according to Russell/Pahoran, just hoping for gay marriage in the temple makes one an unfaithful Latter-day Saint.  That's the assertion that started this "no true scotsman" thread.

Pretty sure there is more to it than just that one criteria. And further more even if true, you will need to take that up with him.

[stemelbow]

It is in fact 39 years, 9 months, 3 days, 8 hours, 31 minutes and 46 seconds.

 

That's nearly three months of elapsed time since we started counting down. Granted, that's not a great deal yet, but you can consult my thread of April general conference quotes to gauge how much little progress has been made toward your hoped-for goal.

 

I doubt I'll be around when the bell rings, but maybe someone here will, and then it can be judged whose prediction was really the "embarrassing footnote."

Why is being wrong in your prediction embarrassing?