No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

West Point.

[CCRW]

Russell's OP list of what constitutes a Faithful Mormon touches on a lot more than just the SSM in the temple issue (in fact it is not directly mentioned).  You might note, I don't tend to have a horse in this race and don't tend to post of the issue, and yet I (and others) might not fit his list and therefor are something less.

Edited April 29, 2015 by CCRW

[stemelbow]

meh...

I see the gospel as being Jesus is the Christ, the Savior. Everything else is just appendages to that. And as appendages, they are subject to being reconsidered, and re-applied. I would include in that everything that is not Jesus being the Christ and Savior. Even things like the nature of God. As it is, we'll probably never really be able to grasp His nature anyway, at least until we see clearly. What this means, then, is even things like SSM may need some heavy reevaluating at some point, which may mean, we do a huge ol' 180 on the topic. You never know what eternity means until you see it, and you'll never know what changes may come when new light and knowledge is received.

I really don't see it useful at all to define a faithful latter-day Saint beyond that. When people try to, I only see people setting up stakes and saying, "you are out of bounds. You need to be confined into this little square. If you are not, then I define you as the opposite of what you define yourself as." So while it carries dramatic effect, stripped down, in my mind, it means nothing.

Edited April 29, 2015 by stemelbow

[Brian 2.0]

I see the gospel as being Jesus is the Christ, the Savior. Everything else is just appendages to that. And as appendages, they are subject to being reconsidered, and re-applied. I would include in that everything that is not Jesus being the Christ and Savior. Even things like the nature of God. As it is, we'll probably never really be able to grasp His nature anyway, at least until we see clearly. What this means, then, is even things like SSM may need some heavy reevaluating at some point, which may mean, we do a huge ol' 180 on the topic. You never know what eternity means until you see it, and you'll never know what changes may come when new light and knowledge is received.

Typical unfaithful Mormon response.

Regards,

Brian 2.0

Only teasing of course.

[tonie]

Call for references, please.

Where did I say that?

 

 

see your opening post for this thread.

 

 

And -- try to be civil, this time.

 

The unfounded accusation, in an effort to distracted and/or well poison.

 

Is it Ad hominem?

 

Is it another fallacy (loaded quesiont, i.e. would you like to also ask me when I stopped beating my spouse)?

 

or both?

 

I think it is both.

Edited April 29, 2015 by tonie

[rockpond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

......

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

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

Here's another one I'd like to throw in for Russell's response: What about a church member who attends and celebrates his lesbian sister's same sex wedding? And he lets his sister and her wife stay at his home together. Is he also unfaithful?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here's another one I'd like to throw in for Russell's response: What about a church member who attends and celebrates his lesbian sister's same sex wedding? And he lets his sister and her wife stay at his home together. Is he also unfaithful?

Oh, you got Russell on that one for sure. I can hardly wait to see his response.

 

Because as you know that is exactly the same as "One day there will be gay marriage in the temple".

[rockpond]

Oh, you got Russell on that one for sure. I can hardly wait to see his response.

Because as you know that is exactly the same as "One day there will be gay marriage in the temple".

It's obviously not the same. If it was the same I wouldn't have asked the question.

If you go re-read Brian's post you'll see that he is trying to understand where Russell draws the line between faithful and unfaithful with respect to this topic.

You are welcome to answer the questions and weigh in as well though I realize that seems counter to your posting style.

Edited April 29, 2015 by rockpond

[cinepro]

The point of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is that the arguer takes an objective description ("Scotsman") and modifies it with a specifier into a new definition that he just made up or is unique to the arguer ("true Scotsman").

 

The test is to see whether RCM is doing the same.

 

First, we start out with the descriptor "Mormon".

 

 

 

As we have recently seen from the John Dehlin dust-up, just about anyone can choose to call herself a "Mormon."

 

So we must ask ourselves if there is some objective definition of "Mormon" that can be applied apart from RCM's feelings on the subject.  I certainly think so. 

 

In the context of this discussion board and as defined by the CoJCoLdS, a "Mormon" is anyone who has been baptized into the CoJCoLdS and is currently on the records (hasn't left through death, resignation or ex'd).  The Church has the names of all the members, and counts them.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-stats

 

According the Church itself, there are currently 15,372,337 members or "Mormons".  So if you're on that list, you can objectively be considered a "Mormon".

 

Second, we must look at the modified definitions that are being put forth by RCM, and figure out whether these also have an objective definition, or if they're something he's making up and defining himself.

 

The first modified definition is "believing Latter-day Saint", followed by "faithful Latter-day Saint" (for the purposes of these definitions, I'm assuming RCM is using "Latter-day Saint" synonymously with "Mormon"):

 

 

 

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

 

 

So what are the objective definitions for "believing Latter-day Saint" and "faithful Latter-day Saint"?   Here is how it is described by Church leaders in official Church publications.  The first two are from President Eyring, and relate to "optimism":

 

 

Now let's look at the definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint":

 

 

That ought to help you understand why any believing Latter-day Saint is an optimist about what lies ahead for him or her, however difficult the present may be.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/our-perfect-example?lang=eng

 

 

 

That kindly and optimistic view of others comes naturally to the believing Latter-day Saint.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/henry-b-eyring_child-god/

 

The third reference I found is from President Packer, and it's a little longer but very interesting:

 

 

A second misconception the activists promote is that therapy cannot treat, let alone change, same-gender attraction.  This false assumption is linked to the first one: if you’re born gay, there is no need to change; and since you have a permanent condition, you can’t change anyway.  Evidence that people have indeed changed threatens the political agenda of the activists, because actual change disproves their claim that homosexuality is a fixed condition that deserves the same legal protections as those fixed conditions like race and gender.  So they don’t want you, or anyone else, to change, or even to believe that change is possible.

But as President Packer said, “The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot change and are compelled to live in sin.  The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven.”[xxii]  If you believe no change is possible, you have only two options, neither of which is acceptable to a believing Latter-day Saint — you must either give in or give up.  Thankfully, you have other options.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction

 

So apparently to be a "believing Latter-day Saint" is to be an optimist that believes that homosexuality isn't a "permanent condition".  An interesting definition to be sure, but not exactly what RCM had imagined.

 

I couldn't find any references that support RCM's other qualifiers, so I can only assume he has made these up. 

 

Now let's look at "faithful Latter-day Saint":

 

Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes.

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

 

 

Rarely in the future will it be easy or popular to be a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/face-the-future-with-faith?lang=eng

 

 

 

 

There is no question that faithful Latter-day Saint young women can have a great impact for good in helping young men

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/10/to-the-young-women-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

The most direct definition would seem to be this one:

 

 

Every individual who qualifies for a temple recommend is also qualified as a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/opening-remarks?lang=eng

 

So the Church's definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" would appear to be an unpopular polygamous girl who helps other men keep their Priesthood commitments and has a Temple recommend.  Again, not exactly what RCM came up with.

 

In the end, it does appear that RCM has taken an objective "class" and added his own creative (and exclusionary) modifiers that have no objective reference in an attempt to limit the members of that "class", which is pretty much the definition of the "no True Scotsman fallacy".  

Edited April 29, 2015 by cinepro

[CCRW]

Here's another one I'd like to throw in for Russell's response: What about a church member who attends and celebrates his lesbian sister's same sex wedding? And he lets his sister and her wife stay at his home together. Is he also unfaithful?

 A faithful member would have disowned the sister and thus the other two conditions would never be an issue.

Edited April 29, 2015 by CCRW

[tonie]

The point of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is that the arguer takes an objective description ("Scotsman") and modifies it with a specifier into a new definition that he just made up or is unique to the arguer ("true Scotsman").

The test is to see whether RCM is doing the same.

First, we start out with the descriptor "Mormon".

So we must ask ourselves if there is some objective definition of "Mormon" that can be applied apart from RCM's feelings on the subject. I certainly think so.

In the context of this discussion board and as defined by the CoJCoLdS, a "Mormon" is anyone who has been baptized into the CoJCoLdS and is currently on the records (hasn't left through death, resignation or ex'd). The Church has the names of all the members, and counts them.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-stats

According the Church itself, there are currently 15,372,337 members or "Mormons". So if you're on that list, you can objectively be considered a "Mormon".

Second, we must look at the modified definitions that are being put forth by RCM, and figure out whether these also have an objective definition, or if they're something he's making up and defining himself.

The first modified definition is "believing Latter-day Saint", followed by "faithful Latter-day Saint" (for the purposes of these definitions, I'm assuming RCM is using "Latter-day Saint" synonymously with "Mormon"):

So what are the objective definitions for "believing Latter-day Saint" and "faithful Latter-day Saint"? Here is how it is described by Church leaders in official Church publications. The first two are from President Eyring, and relate to "optimism":

Now let's look at the definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint":

The third reference I found is from President Packer, and it's a little longer but very interesting:

So apparently to be a "believing Latter-day Saint" is to be an optimist that believes that homosexuality isn't a "permanent condition". An interesting definition to be sure, but not exactly what RCM had imagined.

I couldn't find any references that support RCM's other qualifiers, so I can only assume he has made these up.

Now let's look at "faithful Latter-day Saint":

The most direct definition would seem to be this one:

So the Church's definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" would appear to be an unpopular polygamous girl who helps other men keep their Priesthood commitments and has a Temple recommend. Again, not exactly what RCM came up with.

In the end, it does appear that RCM has taken an objective "class" and added his own creative (and exclusionary) modifiers that have no objective reference in an attempt to limit the members of that "class", which is pretty much the definition of the "no True Scotsman fallacy".

Bravo, good Sir!

[Russell C McGregor]

see your opening post for this thread.

 

Non-responsive. Sorry. 

 

The unfounded accusation, in an effort to distracted and/or well poison.

 

Is it Ad hominem?

 

Is it another fallacy (loaded quesiont, i.e. would you like to also ask me when I stopped beating my spouse)?

 

or both?

 

I think it is both.

It is neither.

It is simply another way to say, are you being "your usual self?"

Oh, wait: are you saying that when you said that to me, then you were asking a loaded question and using the ad hominem fallacy?

Okay.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

West Point.

Do you think West Point was as important to Revolutionary War America as the Temple is to believing Latter-day Saints?

[Russell C McGregor]

A faithful member would have disowned the sister and thus the other two conditions would never be an issue.

Would he?

Oh.

[CCRW]

Would he?

Oh.

 

maybe not a grumpy New Zealander Faithful LDS?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 A faithful member would have disowned the sister and thus the other two conditions would never be an issue.

Really? I am sure you are able to produce something from official sources telling faithful members to do that? If not it looks like you are projecting.

[CCRW]

Really? I am sure you are able to produce something from official sources telling faithful members to do that? If not it looks like you are projecting.

I guess I needed to put /sarcasm on the post ... I was poking fun at Russell

[Damien the Leper]

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

I think Arnold is a bad example as he was a colonial and not an American. Historically speaking, no one became an American, officially speaking, until the end of the Revolutionary War. Dr. James W. Loewen has lectured on U.S. history and the many misconceptions being touted as actual history. Benedict Arnold was the subject of a lecture he gave at University of Arizona.

[Damien the Leper]

maybe not a grumpy New Zealander Faithful LDS?

Let's dispell the myth that there is a real 'faithful' or 'believing' New Zealand LDS. They are not true LDS.

[cksalmon]

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

 

 

Hahaha: He said "the key truth claims."

 

Yes, I get that you've appended various adumbrations. 

 

You rationalists, you!

Edited April 30, 2015 by cksalmon

[CCRW]

So I take it that Russell has admitted defeat on the OP since there has been no rebuttal to it since cinepro's 10 upvoted post?

[Senator]

So I take it that Russell has admitted defeat on the OP

 

Really???

 

You do not know Russell.

[CCRW]

Really???

 

You do not know Russell.

 

That was the old Russell.  The new Russell has loosened up and can admit when he's wrong.  I can see it in him!

[Senator]

... when he's wrong...

 

When??

 

Heh

[Senator]

 since cinepro's 10 upvoted post?

 

Cinepro's "10" effectively gathered up all the ......ehem.......unfaithful.

 

That is why I could not give him a vote.