No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Gray]

I didn't remove anything.  I was using a phone and it might have disappeared.

 

Believe what you like.  All I am telling you is that in Western Culture "sodomy" refers to homosexual behavior and other behaviors, and Sodom is believed to have been destroyed due to "abominations" including homosexuality, and it is clear that the mob outside the house wanted to have sex homosexual sex with the visitors who were male.

 

I am old, but I wasn't there, if it did exist at all.  It is what it is in the culture- I honestly do not care one iota.  If you want to believe that it has nothing to do with homosexuality, fine.  Redefine the words anyway you like, the problem is just that people will not know what you are talking about.

 

Trust me, if you fail to ask someone to dinner and call it "sodomy" you will be in trouble.  That is not what the word means.  I am being as nice as I can about it.

 

Well, if you care about how Biblical authors defined the sin of Sodom, then it's a point worth arguing over.

 

As far as modern usages of the word, what it actually means is non-procreative sexual behavior, which are not limited only to gay people. 

[CV75]

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

This saying, attributed to Jesus, is, I think, an excellent means of determining a teaching to be true or false in the only meaningful sense of those words. That is, compare the results of living it, to its opposite. 

 

It is clear to me, at least, that our current teachings on homosexuality lead to misery, self-loathing and even death. Gay marriage, on the other hand, bears good fruits in those who enter into it - the same fruits that those of us in straight marriages enjoy. That is to say, greater peace, greater contentment, greater wholeness. It creates whole people who are capable of enjoying the fruits of spirituality. 

 

The orthodox viewpoint right now is creating a lot of broken people. It's just not sustainable. It doesn't pass the John 7:17 test. 

I think you have it backwards. You exercise faith, and then realize more fully the doctrine is of God. You carry out the principle, or His will (faithfully live the principle with real intent), and then you know the it is of God, which enables you to exercise greater faith and obtai9n greater knowledge—even in the same principle.

 

One barrier to accomplishing this is rallying sufficient intent given the very real challenges of the physical world and/or our fallen nature. But it can be done; the arms of mercy are always extended. Even if one must deny himself (for the time being) the principle of marriage because he cannot enter it with real intent liberates him to follow the Light of Christ in other covenants and eventually receive all the blessings the Lord has in store for all the children. This is true spirituality, both in this world and the next.

 

There is a temporal sustainability and peace, contentment and wholeness, and a spiritual and eternal generation or continuation and peace, contentment and wholeness. What I’ve described above is the latter. Generation is superior to sustaining, and is the ultimate blessing of human dignity and happiness.

Edited May 13, 2015 by CV75

[CV75]

If you feel I dodged your points than I must have misunderstood your questions because I wasn't intentionally dodging.

 

And yes, it's possible that the current policy/doctrine regarding marriage will not ever be changed.

Yes, I know you weren't intentionally dodging, that was my point about people naturally boxing themselves in.

[Gray]

Good arguments, and thanks for that.

 

That's the first reasonable argument I have seen here.

 

So we throw out heavenly mother?  We throw out the proclamation, and the entire family structure of the social trinity and how we now make three persons one in a family, right?

 

I don't see why we'd need to. But the mother/father thing doesn't have to be in the sense of mammalian biological functions. It could be more about organizing co-eternal intelligences. The familial thing could be about love and not reproduction. 

 

So back to the Trinity, or do we become strict monotheists or total polytheists believing in the council of gods which include homosexual gods and female Creators?  I suppose that would work.  Back to Greece?  Our God happens to be married but that is not the only possibility?   The myth uh, description model, has to match the theology or it has no power.  To have power for humans, it must be a model we humans can relate to and that can plausibly include fundamentalists, and perhaps the council of the Gods could be seen that way.

 

As it stands now in Mormon theology there are probably an infinite number of unknown gods. The only gods worshiped would be those at the head of whatever family belonged to them. 

 

In any case, I don't see why family relationships among the gods has to be less diverse than the ones on earth. You do place great value in parity between humanity and divinity. One of the great marks of humanity is our diversity and adaptability to our circumstances. 

 

 

Ironically that sounds more like Brigham Young than anything else.  Adam - God kind of fits with that.

 

I don't see it happening, and I remain unconvinced.  Maybe Bokovoy sees that coming, and sees his research on that belief as laying the groundwork for that direction.

 

That's probably what Seth was talking about when he said we needed to go backward to go forward.

 

Honestly I don't know how things will work out. Over the last 100 years however, Mormon theology has tended to contract rather than grow. 

 

That would emphasize the sexuality of the gods, not minimize it.   Pretty weird stuff for the modern day.  But I think it would fit with present theology and please both the feminists and the gays.

 

I don't see that there has to be any sexuality in heaven at all. I could see the church backing away from that. Culturally we're already squeamish about anything to do with S.E.X.

 

That's fine to advocate, but I will never advocate that.  I see it as a serious mistake.  I see the apotheosis of family values as incredibly important for social morality.   Without families we are doomed.

 

Yes, without families we are doomed, but embracing gay families does no harm to straight families, or any other kind of family. You can be pro-family in multiple familial dimensions.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

I think you have it backwards. You exercise faith, and then realize more fully the doctrine is of God.

 

Only if it is the object of God that His gay children should be so miserable that many of them end up taking their own lives. 

 

You carry out the principle, or His will (faithfully live the principle with real intent), and then you know the it is of God, which enables you to exercise greater faith and obtai9n greater knowledge—even in the same principle.

 

We can examine the fruits of our teachings about gay people. Suicides, homeless teenagers and almost unbearable misery. Examine the fruits of gay marriage and the difference couldn't be starker. Gay people who marry enjoy the same benefits of straight people who marry.

 

I wouldn't wish being a gay Mormon on my worst enemy. That's a problem. 

 

One barrier to accomplishing this is rallying sufficient intent given the very real challenges of the physical world and/or our fallen nature. But it can be done; the arms of mercy are always extended.

 

For a very small minority of people, it can work. But usually only if they happen to have an unusually accepting ward. 

 

Even if one must deny himself (for the time being) the principle of marriage because he cannot enter it with real intent liberates him to follow the Light of Christ in other covenants and eventually receive all the blessings the Lord has in store for all the children. This is true spirituality, both in this world and the next.

 

We cannot justify putting people through hell on earth by promising them heaven after death. It's repressive and it's immoral. 

 

There is a temporal sustainability and peace, contentment and wholeness, and a spiritual and eternal generation or continuation and peace, contentment and wholeness. What I’ve described above is the latter. Generation is superior to sustaining, and is the ultimate blessing of human dignity and happiness.

 

Gay people can generally find lasting peace and happiness the same way we can - through monogamous marriage with someone they are attracted to. You can't do something that makes you miserable and expect to find happiness at the end. 

Edited May 13, 2015 by Gray

[rodheadlee]

A good example of presentism 

How ironic.

[Gray]

How ironic.

 

Is it?

[Russell C McGregor]

Now, in addition to Scott's "self-evident" argument we have Russell's "goes without saying" argument.

Conflicts between section 132 and modern teachings? Well, let's just insert some extra language in the D&C that is "self-evident".

Lack of scriptural support for condemning gay marriage? Well, it "goes without saying".

It's not an "argument," except to the extent that it's a rebuttal to the clearly disingenuous argument from "silence" -- selective silence, that is -- put forward by those who think "same sex marriage" is worth mentioning.

 

None of the ancient scriptures talk about "same sex marriage" for much the same reason that they don't talk about television, the internet or baseball cards: simply because there was never any such thing.  It was never in contemplation in those days.

 

OTOH, every single time -- without fail -- that homosexual acts are mentioned in the Scriptures, they are mentioned for the sole purpose of being condemned.

 

Utterly and unequivocally.

 

Since "same sex marriage" clearly entails homosexual activity, and since homosexual activity is unambiguously, univocally and vigorously rejected, it relentlessly follows that "same sex marriage" cannot possibly be acceptable.

Ever.

[Vance]

1) Pompeii was destroyed by fire.

 

2) Modern archeological excavation reveals that homosexuality was rampant at the time.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

[CV75]

 

I think you have it backwards. You exercise faith, and then realize more fully the doctrine is of God.

 

Only if it is the object of God that His gay children should be so miserable that many of them end up taking their own lives. 

 

You carry out the principle, or His will (faithfully live the principle with real intent), and then you know the it is of God, which enables you to exercise greater faith and obtai9n greater knowledge—even in the same principle.

 

We can examine the fruits of our teachings about gay people. Suicides, homeless teenagers and almost unbearable misery. Examine the fruits of gay marriage and the difference couldn't be starker. Gay people who marry enjoy the same benefits of straight people who marry.

 

I wouldn't wish being a gay Mormon on my worst enemy. That's a problem. 

 

One barrier to accomplishing this is rallying sufficient intent given the very real challenges of the physical world and/or our fallen nature. But it can be done; the arms of mercy are always extended.

 

For a very small minority of people, it can work. But usually only if they happen to have an unusually accepting ward. 

 

Even if one must deny himself (for the time being) the principle of marriage because he cannot enter it with real intent liberates him to follow the Light of Christ in other covenants and eventually receive all the blessings the Lord has in store for all the children. This is true spirituality, both in this world and the next.

 

We cannot justify putting people through hell on earth by promising them heaven after death. It's repressive and it's immoral. 

 

There is a temporal sustainability and peace, contentment and wholeness, and a spiritual and eternal generation or continuation and peace, contentment and wholeness. What I’ve described above is the latter. Generation is superior to sustaining, and is the ultimate blessing of human dignity and happiness.

 

Gay people can generally find lasting peace and happiness the same way we can - through monogamous marriage with someone they are attracted to. You can't do something that makes you miserable and expect to find happiness at the end. 

 

All you have to say about “gay children” is fundamentally applicable to all God’s children. They exercise faith in His will, and then realize the doctrine is of the Father. “Lasting peace and happiness” (however you define them) are gotten the exact same way for all. Some people enjoy what they consider to be “lasting peace and happiness” by opposing the ways of God, and those who do not oppose Him also find what they consider to be “lasting peace and happiness”.

 

We can examine the so-called “fruits” of any LDS teaching and find “suicides, homeless teenagers and almost unbearable misery.” This depends on many factors affecting how good teachings, which otherwise bear good fruit, are understood and applied. Examine the fruits of sin, and sinners enjoy the same benefits as those who do not; this also depends on the many factors affecting this probationary state. Any examination will entail bias, whether inspired of God, people, or the adversary.

 

That is why we accept the revelations on good faith, try them in good faith, and come to know where they are coming from – “really” coming from (see Alma 32). That approach, faith and knowledge contribute form a valuable bias.

 

The Lord’s arms of mercy supersede anyone’s community and relationships, even those running contrary to His example (or even contrary to the Light of Christ).

 

When people follow the Lord’s will, they will not impose hell on others. But life is certainly a probation that can be very hellish. If you’ve lived a charmed existence so far, just wait! If you’ve suffered hell on earth as a result of improperly applied truth by yourself or others, you’d know better than to condemn others, had you forgiven!

[Vance]

As far as modern usages of the word, what it actually means is non-procreative sexual behavior, which are not limited only to gay people. 

That may be true, BUT homosexual behavior IS limited to "non-procreative sexual behavior".

 

So, how does this help your argument?

[Gray]

1) Pompeii was destroyed by fire.

 

2) Modern archeological excavation reveals that homosexuality was rampant at the time.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

They were destroyed for their architecture. God is not a fan of ionic columns, and thinks they are tacky.  

[Gray]

That may be true, BUT homosexual behavior IS limited to "non-procreative sexual behavior".

 

So, how does this help your argument?

 

Not necessarily - surrogacy is a thing.

 

In any case, the church has no opinion on non-procreative sexual behavior when it comes to mixed-gender married couples. Which is to say, faithful members of the church may engage in sodomy so long as they are straight and married to each other. 

[Gray]

All you have to say about “gay children” is fundamentally applicable to all God’s children. They exercise faith in His will, and then realize the doctrine is of the Father. “Lasting peace and happiness” (however you define them) are gotten the exact same way for all. Some people enjoy what they consider to be “lasting peace and happiness” by opposing the ways of God, and those who do not oppose Him also find what they consider to be “lasting peace and happiness”.

 

We can examine the so-called “fruits” of any LDS teaching and find “suicides, homeless teenagers and almost unbearable misery.” This depends on many factors affecting how good teachings, which otherwise bear good fruit, are understood and applied. Examine the fruits of sin, and sinners enjoy the same benefits as those who do not; this also depends on the many factors affecting this probationary state. Any examination will entail bias, whether inspired of God, people, or the adversary.

 

That is why we accept the revelations on good faith, try them in good faith, and come to know where they are coming from – “really” coming from (see Alma 32). That approach, faith and knowledge contribute form a valuable bias.

 

The Lord’s arms of mercy supersede anyone’s community and relationships, even those running contrary to His example (or even contrary to the Light of Christ).

 

When people follow the Lord’s will, they will not impose hell on others. But life is certainly a probation that can be very hellish. If you’ve lived a charmed existence so far, just wait! If you’ve suffered hell on earth as a result of improperly applied truth by yourself or others, you’d know better than to condemn others, had you forgiven!

 

In this case, it's a hell that we impose on them, not a hell that is outside of anyone's control. The fruits are bad, therefore, in my viewpoint, the orthodox position cannot be true. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not necessarily - surrogacy is a thing.

 

In any case, the church has no opinion on non-procreative sexual behavior when it comes to mixed-gender married couples. Which is to say, faithful members of the church may engage in sodomy so long as they are straight and married to each other. 

We are not talking about mixed gendered couples are we. So that doesn't help your case at all.

[Russell C McGregor]

Only if it is the object of God that His gay children should be so miserable that many of them end up taking their own lives. 

This has been the fall-back argument from "gay" propagandists for a number of years now: "Gay suicide is all the fault of those heartless religious conservatives!" Which then quickly morphs into, "If you don't give us everything we demand, we'll kill ourselves!"

It is cynical, manipulative, dishonest and evil.

And I have never once seen the underlying claim supported by anything that even begins to resemble evidence.

Have you?

 

We can examine the fruits of our teachings about gay people. Suicides, homeless teenagers and almost unbearable misery.

Again with the boilerplate "gay" propaganda. And just whose "our" teachings are those?

 

Examine the fruits of gay marriage and the difference couldn't be starker. Gay people who marry enjoy the same benefits of straight people who marry.

Really?

"Gay" people who marry start biological families, do they?

 

We cannot justify putting people through hell on earth by promising them heaven after death. It's repressive and it's immoral. 

Immoral?

An advocate for gross immorality telling us that our position is "immoral?"

Now that's funny!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This has been the fall-back argument from "gay" propagandists for a number of years now: "Gay suicide is all the fault of those heartless religious conservatives!" Which then quickly morphs into, "If you don't give us everything we demand, we'll kill ourselves!"

It is cynical, manipulative, dishonest and evil.

And I have never once seen the underlying claim supported by anything that even begins to resemble evidence.

Have you?

 

Again with the boilerplate "gay" propaganda. And just whose "our" teachings are those?

 

Really?

"Gay" people who marry start biological families, do they?

 

Immoral?

An advocate for gross immorality telling us that our position is "immoral?"

Now that's funny!

Actually it is progressive. Only progressive thinking gets this convoluted.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In this case, it's a hell that we impose on them, not a hell that is outside of anyone's control. The fruits are bad, therefore, in my viewpoint, the orthodox position cannot be true. 

If it causes some one pain then it is bad is your position?

[Russell C McGregor]

Lack of scriptural support for condemning gay marriage? Well, it "goes without saying".

 

Incidentally, demanding "scriptural support for condemning gay marriage" would appear to be based upon a hermeneutic of distrust towards the Lord's anointed servants. It works best if one assumes the default position that the Brethren are wrong unless proven otherwise.

Which may indeed be your position.

However, among believing Latter-day Saints, the opposite presumption is made. We hold that the Brethren are right unless proven otherwise, especially when speaking about those matters which are central to their callings. A junior apostle in the early 20th century confidently declaring that men would never land on the moon rightly garners a chuckle; the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve definitively stating that marriage is between a man and a woman is something that we, believing Latter-day Saints, take seriously and accept as the Mind and Will of the Lord.

Just so you know.

[ttribe]

1) Pompeii was destroyed by fire.

 

2) Modern archeological excavation reveals that homosexuality was rampant at the time.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Is this a joke?

[Russell C McGregor]

Not necessarily - surrogacy is a thing.

It may indeed be a "thing;" whether a good or a bad thing, is another discussion.

But it is, by definition, a heterosexual thing.  Which means it is not part of a homosexual relationship, and therefore not related to "same sex marriage."

[rockpond]

Incidentally, demanding "scriptural support for condemning gay marriage" would appear to be based upon a hermeneutic of distrust towards the Lord's anointed servants. It works best if one assumes the default position that the Brethren are wrong unless proven otherwise.

Which may indeed be your position.

However, among believing Latter-day Saints, the opposite presumption is made. We hold that the Brethren are right unless proven otherwise, especially when speaking about those matters which are central to their callings. A junior apostle in the early 20th century confidently declaring that men would never land on the moon rightly garners a chuckle; the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve definitively stating that marriage is between a man and a woman is something that we, believing Latter-day Saints, take seriously and accept as the Mind and Will of the Lord.

Just so you know.

Well it's appropriate that you've returned to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in this thread with your declaration of what "believing LDS" think.

Regarding the rest of your post, I listen to as study the words of our prophets and apostles. I pray about and apply their teachings in my life. But ultimately, it is through the Spirit that we discern truth.

[rodheadlee]

Well it's appropriate that you've returned to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in this thread with your declaration of what "believing LDS" think.

Regarding the rest of your post, I listen to as study the words of our prophets and apostles. I pray about and apply their teachings in my life. But ultimately, it is through the Spirit that we discern truth.

I don't know what Spirit is talking to you but the Holy Spirit bore witness to me that the abomination that makes desolate is SSM.

[Russell C McGregor]

Well it's appropriate that you've returned to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in this thread with your declaration of what "believing LDS" think.

Oh, so you don't think "beliving Latter-day Saints" represents a valid category?

That explains a good deal.

So, if some anonymous poster were to (1) claim to be a "Mormon," and (2) deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, nobody could respond by saying that his views did not represent those of believing Latter-day Saints?

Is that your position?

Or are there some circumstances where the concept of "believing Latter-day Saints" might actually mean something?

And if there are, how do you distinguish this circumstance from those?

Do you genuinely not know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is, or do you just find it a tactically convenient label to stick on arguments you can't answer?

Regarding the rest of your post, I listen to as study the words of our prophets and apostles. I pray about and apply their teachings in my life. But ultimately, it is through the Spirit that we discern truth.

That sounds nice; and comfortingly Mormon, too. But what does it actually mean?

Ever since you told me (1) that you didn't leave the Church because of "StayLDS," and (2) that you don't see anything wrong with Dehlin's prescription for prevarication, I keep seeing vague, easily equivocated statements in your posts. They look exactly like the sort of things Mister Dehlin tells his recruits to say in order to stay under the radar and white-ant the Church.

And while you may choose to put it down to me having a morbidly suspicious mind, the fact is that those statements are not compatible with certain other positions you hold; but they can be reconciled with those positions if we treat them as Dehlinesque doubletalk.

[mfbukowski]

Just in case somone is waiting for a reply from me, it will probably not be forthcoming. I just do not have the time right now. Thanks for the discussion.