No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Riled? What the issue is is the niggling over points that are not germane to the topic discussed. Part of that is my fault which I fully acknowledge. It will be the last time I do such.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Gray]

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.

 

The orthodox LDS position on gay marriages is more recent than my birth, I suspect. Of course much of that is to do with the recency of the issue. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The orthodox LDS position on gay marriages is more recent than my birth, I suspect. Of course much of that is to do with the recency of the issue. 

Has there ever been a time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ when it ever did or would have approved of homosexual behavior, let alone such behavior within a so-called "marriage"?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

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.

 

I have taken it up with him.  The reason I pointed it out to you is because you said:  "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."

 

I fall into the "hoping for it" category.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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 posit that a great many that hope for future revelation conduct this type of introspection all the time.

 

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.

I might have missed the part of the OP where it said "no faithful latter-day saint" entertains" fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church." I also missed the part where it said "no faithful latter-day saint" agitates for the old guard to die off. Perhaps you could point me in that direction?

 

Do you support Russell's apparent view that no Latter-day Saint who merely wishes for future revelation allowing same sex sealings can in good faith obtain and hold a temple recommend?

 

 

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.

 

There is nothing inherent about a mere wish (meaning a strong hope for something that is likely unobtainable) for future revelation allowing same sex sealings that requires one to agitate for change, or entertain " fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church." I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge this point.

Edited May 7, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Gray]

Has there ever been a time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ when it ever did or would have approved of homosexual behavior, let alone such behavior within a so-called "marriage"?

 

Unclear. But gay marriage and unmarried gay sex are two different things, just as within heterosexual relationships. 

 

Homosexuality is completely unmentioned in all three books of scripture unique to Mormonism. I haven't investigated the issue, but I don't know that it was discussed with any frequency in the first 100 years of the church's history. 

Edited May 7, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

Unclear. But gay marriage and unmarried gay sex are two different things, just as within heterosexual relationships. 

 

If the Church has always forbidden homosexual behavior under any circumstances, why do you think opposition to it within so-called "gay marriage" would amount to a new position on the part of the Church?

 

Homosexuality is completely unmentioned in all three books of scripture unique to Mormonism. I haven't investigated the issue, but I don't know that it was discussed with any frequency in the first 100 years of the church's history. 

 

 

Perhaps what King Benjamin said applies here:

 

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

 30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not ^awatch yourselves, and your ^bthoughts, and your ^cwords, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and ^dcontinue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

 

[ttribe]

Riled? What the issue is is the niggling over points that are not germane to the topic discussed. Part of that is my fault which I fully acknowledge. It will be the last time I do such.

 

I'm a pedantic accountant.  Sometimes I have better control over that than other times.

[Gray]

If the Church has always forbidden homosexual behavior under any circumstances, why do you think opposition to it within so-called "gay marriage" would amount to a new position on the part of the Church?

 

It's unclear that this is the case. I don't think there has been much said on the issue at all until the last 50-60 years. 

 

Perhaps what King Benjamin said applies here:

 

King Benjamin was obviously referring to the unholy practice of ghost riding the whip. 

[ttribe]

^^^Had to look up "ghost riding the whip" - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ghost+Ride+The+Whip

[Russell C McGregor]

I have taken it up with him.  The reason I pointed it out to you is because you said:  "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."

 

I fall into the "hoping for it" category.

Hoping for it.

And proselytizing for it.

And appealing to your oh so "orthodox" and "faithful" standing as proof that it isn't an apostate position.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I would posit that a great many that hope for future revelation conduct this type of introspection all the time.

 

I might have missed the part of the OP where it said "no faithful latter-day saint" entertains" fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church." I also missed the part where it said "no faithful latter-day saint" agitates for the old guard to die off. Perhaps you could point me in that direction?

 

Do you support Russell's apparent view that no Latter-day Saint who merely wishes for future revelation allowing same sex sealings can in good faith obtain and hold a temple recommend?

 

 

There is nothing inherent about a mere wish (meaning a strong hope for something that is likely unobtainable) for future revelation allowing same sex sealings that requires one to agitate for change, or entertain " fanciful notions that the old guard will one day die off, allowing their opponents to swoop in and seize control of the Church." I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge this point.

I already told you: Because it is so drastically at odds with what is unanimously and universally taught by the anointed servants of God and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Again, I would be very uncomfortable if I harbored a sentiment so extremely out of sync with the settled position of the Church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have taken it up with him.  The reason I pointed it out to you is because you said:  "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."

 

I fall into the "hoping for it" category.

Did you not say on other threads that you think it will happen in 40 years because we just need to wait until the old guys die of and get new blood in there to receive the revelation? Did you also not state that you received a revelation that Gay Marriage will happen in the temple?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm a pedantic accountant.  Sometimes I have better control over that than other times.

OK well lets part on good terms. And agree (mostly me or my fault) not to get sucked into points that don't really matter.

[ttribe]

OK well lets part on good terms. And agree (mostly me or my fault) not to get sucked into points that don't really matter.

 

Sounds good.

[rockpond]

Did you not say on other threads that you think it will happen in 40 years because we just need to wait until the old guys die of and get new blood in there to receive the revelation? Did you also not state that you received a revelation that Gay Marriage will happen in the temple?

No.

For starters, I would never refer to our prophets and apostles as "old guys".

Second, my personal revelations do not apply to the Church as a whole.

Regarding Scott's countdown of 39 years and change, I suspect that's a reasonably accurate forecast because I think that the Church (both members and leaders) would have to be ready for such a revelation. (Just as we had to be ready for OD2 and, to a lesser extent, OD1 which we may not have been totally ready to receive as a church but was necessitated by other factors.)

[Stargazer]

No it is called maturing and realizing that what you once thought was truth likely is not.

By the way the apostate comment is tongue firmly in cheek. I know that I am viewed as such by some here even though I still participate as an LDS member and keep my mouth shut at church.

So, I take it that you would consider me to be an immature person then? Because my realization of the truth of the Church is not only still intact, but has grown steadily more solid over time, to the point that I have a hard time visualizing the opposite?

Well, if that be the case, you're entitled to your opinion, and I would not denigrate you for it. I just believe you're horribly misguided and I hope you wake up some fine day. No hard feelings?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No.

For starters, I would never refer to our prophets and apostles as "old guys".

Second, my personal revelations do not apply to the Church as a whole.

Regarding Scott's countdown of 39 years and change, I suspect that's a reasonably accurate forecast because I think that the Church (both members and leaders) would have to be ready for such a revelation. (Just as we had to be ready for OD2 and, to a lesser extent, OD1 which we may not have been totally ready to receive as a church but was necessitated by other factors.)

But you did say that we need to wait for some new blood to get in there.  You might not have said "old guys". But the meaning is the same. We need to wait for these old fuddy duddies to die off and get more enlightened younger men in there that are ready to receive the revelation because there is something wrong with the current crop.

 

There is no reason to expect a revelation that gay marriage will happen in the temple. I cannot see a single reason to expect it.

 

BTW revelations are not given because some one is ready to receive it. Sometimes that is the case. Other times people just need to ask the question and further more they just come when the Lord sees fit.

 

But again with regards to gay marriage in the temple I see no reason to even ask. It is already laid out very clearly.

 

And if you bring up the invalid comparison of interracial marriage again I will beat you whit it.

 

 

 

Were is my smiley face icon.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

But you did say that we need to wait for some new blood to get in there.  You might not have said "old guys". But the meaning is the same. We need to wait for these old fuddy duddies to die off and get more enlightened younger men in there that are ready to receive the revelation because there is something wrong with the current crop.

 

There is no reason to expect a revelation that gay marriage will happen in the temple. I cannot see a single reason to expect it.

 

BTW revelations are not given because some one is ready to receive it. Sometimes that is the case. Other times people just need to ask the question and further more they just come when the Lord sees fit.

 

But again with regards to gay marriage in the temple I see no reason to even ask. It is already laid out very clearly.

 

And if you bring up the invalid comparison of interracial marriage again I will beat you whit it.

 

 

 

Were is my smiley face icon.

 

Here ya go --

 

I'm not sure exactly which post you are referencing and I'm not sure I ever used the term "new blood".  I'd certainly never refer to our prophets and apostles as "fuddy duddies" so if you'd like to have a respectful conversation - please don't intentionally misrepresent me.

 

 

From topics.LDS.org:

 

"The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines."

 

and

 

"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

 

As the quotes above indicate, cultural norms can sometimes influence religious teachings.  I didn't say that we need to wait for more enlightened men.  But I do think that there may be some cultural & societal beliefs that we need to overcome.  Time and experience can help.  So can revelation.

 

I agree with you that revelation can come even if we are not ready to receive it.  Sometimes - as you said.

 

Other times we need to be willing to ask the question and prepared to listen for the answer.

 

As the church and our leaders gradually overcome some cultural and, in many respects, mortal biases it seems to me that we are adjusting our stance regarding the broader subject of homosexuality (though not with respect to sexual relations & marriage).  The early writings of Kimball and Packer are quite different than today with respect to things like malleablility/curability, choice, nature of homosexuality.  There was a time when an apostle said that we shouldn't use homosexual as a noun and yet now we have published a website titled "Mormons & Gays".  Today church members in full fellowship can support legal recognition of gay marriage.  Back in 2008 that did not seem to be the case.  Today openly gay people hold callings, teach, serve in bishoprics, etc.

 

p.s.  Not sure what interracial marriage comparison you are referring to... maybe you're thinking of someone else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here ya go --

 

I'm not sure exactly which post you are referencing and I'm not sure I ever used the term "new blood".  I'd certainly never refer to our prophets and apostles as "fuddy duddies" so if you'd like to have a respectful conversation - please don't intentionally misrepresent me.

 

 

From topics.LDS.org:

 

"The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines."

 

and

 

"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

 

As the quotes above indicate, cultural norms can sometimes influence religious teachings.  I didn't say that we need to wait for more enlightened men.  But I do think that there may be some cultural & societal beliefs that we need to overcome.  Time and experience can help.  So can revelation.

 

I agree with you that revelation can come even if we are not ready to receive it.  Sometimes - as you said.

 

Other times we need to be willing to ask the question and prepared to listen for the answer.

 

As the church and our leaders gradually overcome some cultural and, in many respects, mortal biases it seems to me that we are adjusting our stance regarding the broader subject of homosexuality (though not with respect to sexual relations & marriage).  The early writings of Kimball and Packer are quite different than today with respect to things like malleablility/curability, choice, nature of homosexuality.  There was a time when an apostle said that we shouldn't use homosexual as a noun and yet now we have published a website titled "Mormons & Gays".  Today church members in full fellowship can support legal recognition of gay marriage.  Back in 2008 that did not seem to be the case.  Today openly gay people hold callings, teach, serve in bishoprics, etc.

 

p.s.  Not sure what interracial marriage comparison you are referring to... maybe you're thinking of someone else.

Maybe you should read my post again. I never once said that you said they were "fuddy duddies". But you implied what I wrote. That we just need to wait for new guys to get in there. You are playing a semantics game. "I never said new blood" But you did say younger ga's once the older one's die off.

 

And you have used the statements about priesthood ban as well as statements on interracial marriage as justification that one day there will be a revelation for gay marriage because the church changed their stance on these other things via revelation.  A statement from 1949 comes to mind.

[rockpond]

Maybe you should read my post again. I never once said that you said they were "fuddy duddies". But you implied what I wrote. That we just need to wait for new guys to get in there. You are playing a semantics game. "I never said new blood" But you did say younger ga's once the older one's die off.

 

And you have used the statements about priesthood ban as well as statements on interracial marriage as justification that one day there will be a revelation for gay marriage because the church changed their stance on these other things via revelation.  A statement from 1949 comes to mind.

 

It's not semantics -- it's called respectful dialogue.  I respect your beliefs and don't feel a need to diminish them by translating them into demeaning terms.

 

So let me further clarify, for the record:  I don't believe that we are waiting on younger more enlightened men to enter into the Q12.  Nor do I believe that there is anything wrong with the "current crop".  I don't believe any of them are "fuddy duddies".  Nor do I advocate getting "new blood" as apostles.  These men you refer to in degrading terms are apostles whom I honor, respect, and sustain.  They sacrifice much to serve the church and each of us.  I listen when they speak.  I study and learn from their words.  I feel the great spirit that they convey.

 

Yes, I have used statements on the priesthood and temple ban because they are relevant comparisons:  doctrine that we once taught that has now been disavowed as based in cultural mores of the time.  That speaks quite clearly to the case I've made as to why our teachings on homosexual marriage could also one day change.

 

I'm not sure what context I may have used for a comparison with interracial marriage... you'll have to actually cite something I said if you wish to discuss.  Outside of the priesthood/temple ban, interracial marriage was only officially "discouraged" but never prohibited (to my knowledge).

Edited May 8, 2015 by rockpond

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not semantics -- it's called respectful dialogue.  I respect your beliefs and don't feel a need to diminish them by translating them into demeaning terms.

 

So let me further clarify, for the record:  I don't believe that we are waiting on younger more enlightened men to enter into the Q12.  Nor do I believe that there is anything wrong with the "current crop".  I don't believe any of them are "fuddy duddies".  Nor do I advocate getting "new blood" as apostles.  These men you refer to in degrading terms are apostles whom I honor, respect, and sustain.  They sacrifice much to serve the church and each of us.  I listen when they speak.  I study and learn from their words.  I feel the great spirit that they convey.

 

Yes, I have used statements on the priesthood and temple ban because they are relevant comparisons:  doctrine that we once taught that has now been disavowed as based in cultural mores of the time.  That speaks quite clearly to the case I've made as to why our teachings on homosexual marriage could also one day change.

 

I'm not sure what context I may have used for a comparison with interracial marriage... you'll have to actually cite something I said if you wish to discuss.  Outside of the priesthood/temple ban, interracial marriage was only officially "discouraged" but never prohibited (to my knowledge).

I am sure you do revere them. From past dealings with you that does not appear to be the case but what ever. Sometimes it can be hard to see that in forum settings.

 

2ndly we will just have to agree to disagree on your comparison(s). They are not valid for several reasons that have already been brought up which you choose to ignore. I can't help with you that. And I don't wish to rehash them.

[rockpond]

I am sure you do revere them. From past dealings with you that does not appear to be the case but what ever. Sometimes it can be hard to see that in forum settings.

 

2ndly we will just have to agree to disagree on your comparison(s). They are not valid for several reasons that have already been brought up which you choose to ignore. I can't help with you that. And I don't wish to rehash them.

 

I haven't ignore the reasons why some say the comparison is invalid.  They just aren't relevant to the comparison I'm making... as noted above.

[Teancum]

So, I take it that you would consider me to be an immature person then? Because my realization of the truth of the Church is not only still intact, but has grown steadily more solid over time, to the point that I have a hard time visualizing the opposite?Well, if that be the case, you're entitled to your opinion, and I would not denigrate you for it. I just believe you're horribly misguided and I hope you wake up some fine day. No hard feelings?

No hard feeling at all. No I am open to being wrong. Are you?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Teancum

[Stargazer]

No hard feeling at all. No am open to being wrong. Are you?

I am open to being wrong. If I am, I doubt I will find out before I die.  But I consider it highly unlikely that I am wrong in any substantial way.  Details will likely turn out to be different from my current understanding -- as some details have changed for me over time as my understanding has matured.

 

But in the spirit of Pascal's Wager, if I am wrong it probably means there's no afterlife and I will be extinguished at the moment of death.  In short, I won't know about it.  On the other hand, if I manage to stroke out while conscious, then perhaps I will be able to observe the transition in such a way to as to notice that I am wrong.  Very briefly.