No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Teancum]

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. 

I should have said I am open to being wrong,

I think as well that the conclusions I have reached are highly likely correct as well. I guess I am more of an Ocam's Razor guy these days but I used to be where you are at. Yet I continue to seek.

[Brian 2.0]

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.

I'll go ahead and say it. As the years go by and each new generation travels through the ranks you will see less "older" cultural baggage in the social policies of the church. It will mirror (not completely) the "world" with a 20-40 year lag which is about in step because the church is run by the "older" generation.

You can call that good or bad, but as the rising generations enter the quorum they will bring with them (somewhat) the cultural influences of their generations, which have leaned toward greater acceptance and true equality regardless of race, sex, and now sexual orientation.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll go ahead and say it. As the years go by and each new generation travels through the ranks you will see less "older" cultural baggage in the social policies of the church. It will mirror (not completely) the "world" with a 20-40 year lag which is about in step because the church is run by the "older" generation.

You can call that good or bad, but as the rising generations enter the quorum they will bring with them (somewhat) the cultural influences of their generations, which have leaned toward greater acceptance and true equality regardless of race, sex, and now sexual orientation.

Yes, at the dawn of the sexual revolution, there was a lot of "older cultural baggage" in the Church that resisted the rapidly growing sentiment that premarital and extramarital sex can be an OK thing with consenting adults.

 

Now, we find ourselves roughly 50 years out from the dawn of the sexual revolution, and what do we see? The Church still resisting the idea that premarital and extramarital sex can be an OK thing.

 

Maybe Young Turks like David A. Bednar will turn things around? He was in the swingin' sixties, free-love, flower-power generation. Hmm. Doesn't look like it.

 

D. Todd Christofferson perhaps? Not looking likely.

 

Neil L. Andersen? Nope.

 

Those are the three youngest guys, the current best hope (if it can be called that) for bringing into the Church the most prominent of "the cultural influences of their generation," i.e. the sexual revolution.

 

Maybe some things aren't subject to the changing whims of culture after all. Maybe -- just maybe -- certain standards of right and wrong are immutable.

 

On that point, Elder Andersen, in the above-linked talk, said this:

 

 

This past month the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review … the doctrine contained in ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’”⁷

As the world slips away from the Lord’s law of chastity, we do not. President Monson said: “The Savior of mankind described Himself as being in the world but not of the world. We also can be in the world but not of the world as we reject false concepts and false teachings and remain true to that which God has commanded.”⁸

While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. In the very beginning, God initiated marriage between a man and a woman—Adam and Eve. He designated the purposes of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults to, more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured. Families are the treasure of heaven.⁹

 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Brian 2.0, though there is much on which we disagree, I can see from your member title you are a man after my own heart. On that point, see this.

[CV75]

That speaks quite clearly to the case I've made as to why our teachings on homosexual marriage could also one day change.

We really have no teachings on homosexual marriage ("what is a gay wedding cake?") within the context of the instituion God established in the beginning. Our teachings on marriage are clear, and our position on legal alternatives is clear.

 

The so-called case you assert is juxtaposed to the one made by the Lord's servants with regards to the Lord's standard on marriage, which is that it "is not changing" and "will not change."

[rockpond]

We really have no teachings on homosexual marriage ("what is a gay wedding cake?") within the context of the instituion God established in the beginning. Our teachings on marriage are clear, and our position on legal alternatives is clear.

 

The so-called case you assert is juxtaposed to the one made by the Lord's servants with regards to the Lord's standard on marriage, which is that it "is not changing" and "will not change."

 

To say that something "cannot change" without a revelation from God declaring such to be truth, is to effectively deny our belief in continuing revelation.

 

Much of our doctrine has changed throughout our (almost) 200 years.  How do we know we've reached the point where all divine knowledge has been given to us?  The restoration continues today.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian 2.0, though there is much on which we disagree, I can see from your member title you are a man after my own heart. On that point, see this.

Haha! Nice Scott. And very appropro as I just received a book in the mail my wife ordered... a gluten-free cookbook! And none of us are intolerant to gluten.

[canard78]

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?

Sorry for the delay, work's busy.

I can show you a 20thC statement from the prophet that mixed-race marriage was considered against God's doctrine. We could go further back and find statements from Brigham Young on the consequences of mixed race marriage.

I can even show you a current church publication teaching the young men of the church to avoid mixed race marriages.

Until 1978, mixed race couples were unable to have a temple marriage, even a white man and black woman.

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

Again, this is a non-trivial distinction.

"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?

I think it's probable. I think it's more likely than not likely. That's all.

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

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.

Well Pahoran, sorry it's Russell isn't it... it's easy to tell you're struggling with a line of reason when you resort to insults.

[CV75]

To say that something "cannot change" without a revelation from God declaring such to be truth, is to effectively deny our belief in continuing revelation.

There are many kinds and means of legitimate revelation, ranging from “all things denote there is a God” to “thus saith the Lord.” When the Lord’s servants say an eternal principle (such as marriage) is “not changing” or “will not change,” they are in alignment and harmony with past, present and future (continuing) revelation concerning that principle.

Much of our doctrine has changed throughout our (almost) 200 years.  How do we know we've reached the point where all divine knowledge has been given to us?  The restoration continues today.

After baptism, divine knowledge only comes from keeping the foundational covenants (such as marriage), and these do not change.Restored and new knowledge for the Church comes only through authorized channels. When it comes to marriage, the covenant is not changing, and will not change, because restoration is not the same thing as perversion (that would be apostasy).

 

Another doctrine that is not changing, nor will it change, is the principle of opposition in all things. The marriage and opposition principles are so intrinsic to each other, each entailing male/female; creation/destruction; life/death, that they are basically the same.

 

See this talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/be-fruitful-multiply-and-subdue-the-earth?lang=eng

 

“…A same-gender relationship does not multiply. …We should not …hold our expectations of a suitable companion at a level that disqualifies every possible candidate.”

[rockpond]

There are many kinds and means of legitimate revelation, ranging from “all things denote there is a God” to “thus saith the Lord.” When the Lord’s servants say an eternal principle (such as marriage) is “not changing” or “will not change,” they are in alignment and harmony with past, present and future (continuing) revelation concerning that principle.

After baptism, divine knowledge only comes from keeping the foundational covenants (such as marriage), and these do not change.Restored and new knowledge for the Church comes only through authorized channels. When it comes to marriage, the covenant is not changing, and will not change, because restoration is not the same thing as perversion (that would be apostasy).

 

Another doctrine that is not changing, nor will it change, is the principle of opposition in all things. The marriage and opposition principles are so intrinsic to each other, each entailing male/female; creation/destruction; life/death, that they are basically the same.

 

See this talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/be-fruitful-multiply-and-subdue-the-earth?lang=eng

 

“…A same-gender relationship does not multiply. …We should not …hold our expectations of a suitable companion at a level that disqualifies every possible candidate.”

 

That's fine, but know that we used similar logic to justify the race-based priesthood & temple ban.  And that logic has since been dismissed.

 

p.s.  If we have continuing revelation how can you know that current church leaders are "in alignment" with the future.  We might as well say we're all done receiving revelation.  And of course we need to keep covenants to receive divine knowledge, I haven't suggested otherwise.

Edited May 10, 2015 by rockpond

[Russell C McGregor]

Sorry for the delay, work's busy.

I can show you a 20thC statement from the prophet that mixed-race marriage was considered against God's doctrine. We could go further back and find statements from Brigham Young on the consequences of mixed race marriage.

Here we go again.

I ask for evidence of a "ban" and all you have is "statements." The very same ones I've already seen.

There is only one question before you, Canard: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A "BAN?"

I'm asking about deeds, and all you can offer is words.

Why is that?

Is that because there were no deeds?

And you know it?

 

I can even show you a current church publication teaching the young men of the church to avoid mixed race marriages.

In your eagerness to throw as much "stuff" at me as you can, you grabbed one that supports my position, not yours.

Mixed race marriages bring additional challenges. Those entering into them should always be aware of those challenges.

But by your own admission, there is no such "ban" in place now -- but there is still a "current church publication!"

What do you suppose that might mean, Canard? Are "statements" in "publications" sufficient evidence to support your claim that there was a "ban?"

Think it through, Canard. Take your time.

 

Until 1978, mixed race couples were unable to have a temple marriage, even a white man and black woman.

Really? Are those the only two races there are?

Are you saying that if a black man and a black woman -- a monoracial couple -- wanted to get married in the Temple before June 1978, it would have been on?

Or was there some other factor in play?

But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978?

 

I think it's probable. I think it's more likely than not likely. That's all.

Well, I disagree. And I have a track record.

 

Well Pahoran, sorry it's Russell isn't it... it's easy to tell you're struggling with a line of reason when you resort to insults.

What "insults" are those?

It's "insulting" to you to suggest that you think things through instead of just reeling off lists without pausing to consider their relevance, is it?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

[CV75]

That's fine, but know that we used similar logic to justify the race-based priesthood & temple ban.  And that logic has since been dismissed.

The principle of marriage was never used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood, so I'm not sure what logic you are alluding to.

 

p.s.  If we have continuing revelation how can you know that current church leaders are "in alignment" with the future.  We might as well say we're all done receiving revelation.  And of course we need to keep covenants to receive divine knowledge, I haven't suggested otherwise.

As I mentioned, because intersecting eternal principles (such as opposition in all things, atonement and marriage) do not and will not change (that is the "good news").

[rockpond]

The principle of marriage was never used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood, so I'm not sure what logic you are alluding to.

 

The pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will.

Let me get this straight.

 

 

This past month the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review … the doctrine contained in ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World.’”⁷

As the world slips away from the Lord’s law of chastity, we do not. President Monson said: “The Savior of mankind described Himself as being in the world but not of the world. We also can be in the world but not of the world as we reject false concepts and false teachings and remain true to that which God has commanded.”⁸

While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. In the very beginning, God initiated marriage between a man and a woman—Adam and Eve. He designated the purposes of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults to, more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured. Families are the treasure of heaven.⁹

 

This is just "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will"??

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[cinepro]

 

If someone has a hope (for the right reasons) that officially polygamy will come back some day, at least they have a historical leg to stand on. As a faithful member of the church, they could make an argument for that.

 

 

Are you sure about that...?

[CV75]

The pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will.

But in any case, the scriptures on marriage were never used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood.

 

Are you trying to say that the scriptures on marriage (beginning with Genesis) reflect God's will and that He intends readers to apply them to same-gender marriage?

[canard78]

Here we go again.

I ask for evidence of a "ban" and all you have is "statements." The very same ones I've already seen.

There is only one question before you, Canard: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A "BAN?"

I'm asking about deeds, and all you can offer is words.

Why is that?

Is that because there were no deeds?

And you know it?

In your eagerness to throw as much "stuff" at me as you can, you grabbed one that supports my position, not yours.

Mixed race marriages bring additional challenges. Those entering into them should always be aware of those challenges.

But by your own admission, there is no such "ban" in place now -- but there is still a "current church publication!"

What do you suppose that might mean, Canard? Are "statements" in "publications" sufficient evidence to support your claim that there was a "ban?"

Think it through, Canard. Take your time.

Really? Are those the only two races there are?

Are you saying that if a black man and a black woman -- a monoracial couple -- wanted to get married in the Temple before June 1978, it would have been on?

Or was there some other factor in play?

But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978?

Well, I disagree. And I have a track record.

What "insults" are those?

It's "insulting" to you to suggest that you think things through instead of just reeling off lists without pausing to consider their relevance, is it?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

You brought up banning. I raised the issue of something being once taught as a sin and against doctrine and now not taught to be so. The teaching on mixed race has changed.

Was a mixed race temple marriage possible before 1978? No, not at all. Is it now? Have things changed?

Edited May 11, 2015 by canard78

[rockpond]

Let me get this straight.

 

 

 

This is just "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will"??

 

It happened before.  Could it happen again?

[rockpond]

But in any case, the scriptures on marriage were never used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood.

 

Are you trying to say that the scriptures on marriage (beginning with Genesis) reflect God's will and that He intends readers to apply them to same-gender marriage?

 

Correct:  Scriptures on marriage were not used to justify policies concerning race and the priesthood.  Scriptures referring to race were.  And then those scriptures referring to race were used to restrict the ability of certain people to be married/sealed in the temple.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking in that second sentence.  Scriptures reflect man's interaction with God and the divine.  The extent to which the reflect God's will is a matter for the Spirit to testify to each of us.  But, I'm not trying to dodge the question, if you can clarify it, I'll try to answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

Haha! Nice Scott. And very appropro as I just received a book in the mail my wife ordered... a gluten-free cookbook! And none of us are intolerant to gluten.

Hey Brian, I just found another one!

 

How to Become Gluten Intolerant

[Russell C McGregor]

This. Exactly.

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

Yes, it was just as "hideous" as the thing to which I was comparing it.

And you don't get that.

It's not only that you don't agree; you plainly just don't get it.

I wonder why?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Was a mixed race temple marriage possible before 1978? No, not at all. Is it now? Have things changed?

So, you have evidence that a white dude and a female Polynesian were denied a temple marriage prior to 1978?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It happened before.  Could it happen again?

That is not what I asked. I specifically asked you if you view the PotF as a "pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will".

 

 

IF you were to ask me my response is "No it absolutely does not represent "a pattern of reading cultural norms & biases into scripture and believing that they reflect God's will" and I can even explain why this is.

 

This is God's will and it is His plan. I see no evidence that it should or would or even could change. Quite the opposite in fact. I see that it cannot change as it goes against God and his plan.

 

 

Can you do the same with your position? 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Russell C McGregor]

You brought up banning. I raised the issue of something being once taught as a sin and against doctrine and now not taught to be so. The teaching on mixed race has changed.

Was a mixed race temple marriage possible before 1978? No, not at all. Is it now? Have things changed?

Here's a suggestion, Canard: next time you "respond" to something I post, how about you try reading it first?

Here, again, for your edification:

But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978?

[rockpond]

Yes, it was just as "hideous" as the thing to which I was comparing it.

And you don't get that.

It's not only that you don't agree; you plainly just don't get it.

I wonder why?

 

I get it -- meaning that I understand what you were getting at.  I just disagree.  Strongly.