No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[rockpond]

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

 

It's a valid category.  Supposing you can define it as you wish and then use it to dismiss relevant criticisms is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

 

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," ...

 

It means what it says... I meant what I wrote.  And you must have me confused with someone else, StayLDS had nothing to do with me staying in the church.  I think I have only read material on that website in response to questions raised here on these threads.

[Calm]

On the other hand the problem may resolve itself.

Only 2 percent of the population is gay. Of those who would want to be a Mormon?

Apparently if we are right, there is no coherent theology that they could believe in Mormonism.

Were I gay, I would find Mormonism to be the least coherent possible explanation for God.

Tell me what you think of this possibility and if it can fit into LDS theology:

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65361-members-excommunicated-who-enter-same-sex-marriages/?p=1209495632

[Calm]

I don't have references at this time, but recall either hearing or reading that men were physically closer back in JS' s time. It wasn't unheard of for them to kiss, not like male & female do though.

Is it possible that men in the beginning could be bi-sexual, but usually reserve the sex part for women only. Sometimes I get the idea men prefer to be with men, but leave the sexual part for their spouses.

I'm not saying all men, but did read/hear that some of the early church leaders would kiss and be affectionate. Could it be possible that our labeling homosexuality opened the door to choosing one over the other for some? Or maybe those that leaned toward that side more.

Assuming emotional physical touching automatically means romantic or sexual physical touching would be inappropriate.

 

Men and women kiss children and are physically close to them constantly as they care for them.  Yet one hopes there is nothing sexual in the component.

 

It is extremely sad imo that we are so prone to focus on sexual behaviour in our country that any emotional physical behaviour so often becomes defined as sexual first and only after it is proved not to be, are then allowed to simply be friendshop and nonerotic love.

[Calm]

I don't think anyone understands the offering of the virgins, perhaps it was just a negotiating tactic. At any rate it never happened.

I think it makes sense in terms of the law of hospitality that existed in some cultures in the past.  The guests were sacrosanct and one would take food from the family, give them the best of everything in the house even if others went without.  The extreme is one protected the guest even to the point of offering up a family member to be raped rather than the guest (I would have been more impressed if Lot had offered himself).

 

I am not saying it was right, just that I see it as not unusual.  Slaves would have been offered for sexual satisfaction to guests themselves.

[Calm]

Do LDS missionaries do the same with polygamous families?

Not generally if there are kids or social reasons divorce would significantly harm the wives.  They tell the families to stay together and not become baptized.  I wouldn't be surprised if that became the procedure for gay couples with children.

[Russell C McGregor]

It's a valid category.  Supposing you can define it as you wish and then use it to dismiss relevant criticisms is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

 

Well in that case, it doesn't apply to anything I've written.

 

Because I don't suppose I can define it as I wish, and I don't use it to dismiss relevant criticisms.

 

I define it exactly as it is defined by everyone else; with the possible exceptions of a few closet apostates in sheep's clothing.

 

If I say Vidkun Quisling's actions were incompatible with him being a loyal Norwegian, is that an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

[rockpond]

Well in that case, it doesn't apply to anything I've written.

Because I don't suppose I can define it as I wish, and I don't use it to dismiss relevant criticisms.

I define it exactly as it is defined by everyone else; with the possible exceptions of a few closet apostates in sheep's clothing.

If I say Vidkun Quisling's actions were incompatible with him being a loyal Norwegian, is that an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

"I define it exactly as everyone else..." You honestly crack me up. But it's fun reading.

Are you calling me a closet apostate in sheep's clothing?

And no, that last statement is not an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[CV75]

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. 

I'm not sure what case you're finding worthy of isolating since all God's children are alike, and then you also have to make that false accusation about every other LDS teaching since none of them operate in isolation, which is why people react badly to them when isolating them from other teachings that would otherwise enable them to see and do the Father's will, and know that the doctrine of Christ comes from Him.

[Gray]

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

 

The topic was sodomy (modern definition). There seems to be a double standard at play. 

Edited May 14, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

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

 

Indeed. I'm against inflicting misery on anyone, gay or straight, LDS or otherwise. 

[Gray]

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.

 

It's easier to come to those kinds of conclusions when you don't get to know gay people. 

[tonie]

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.

 

Interesting, in my experience the "abomination of desolation" is abortion. And thinking about it could be divorce, neglect of children, sex out-side of marriage, or a myriad of other things.

 

I am not discounting your very personal experience, but your very personal experience does not apply to everyone, just as my very personal exeperience does not.

[tonie]

"I define it exactly as everyone else..." You honestly crack me up. But it's fun reading.

 

Is that him using Argumentum ad populum to defend against the charge of a fallacious "No true Scottsman" statement; the fun just never ends.

 

 

 

Are you calling me a closet apostate in sheep's clothing?

 

I think it is very apparent that is what he has done all along.

[rockpond]

Is that him using Argumentum ad populum to defend against the charge of a fallacious "No true Scottsman" statement; the fun just never ends.

 

Yes, it appears that way.  

[CV75]

Indeed. I'm against inflicting misery on anyone, gay or straight, LDS or otherwise. 

We all are against inflicting misery. Teaching the gospel by the Spirit is not inflicting misery. It is inviting people to Christ.

 

Getting back to John 7:17, if one receives the teachings in faith and does as invited, he will know the teachings are of God, and this contributes to his comfort in the trials and difficulties that come in the process of overcoming the fall and obtaining all the blessings the Lord has in store for him.

 

When one doesn't do as invited and so doesn't develop the confidence that comes of knowing its source, he cannot exercise the faith required to get him through the trials and difficulties imposed by a fallen condition and can easily get distracted by principles he doesn't understand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Indeed. I'm against inflicting misery on anyone, gay or straight, LDS or otherwise. 

So, when Jim down the road cheats on his wife and the church ex'es him and that causes him pain you are not for that. We should just ignore it? How progressive of you. You totally ignore everything in the scriptures with your position.

 

Weeping and wailing come to mind. And I did not say misery, I said pain. So I take it you think pain = misery.

 

I am starting to think I am dialoguing with trolls.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you calling me a closet apostate in sheep's clothing?

 

If the shoe fits. I can think of a few others in this thread that I have some serious concerns about being Mormon.

[Gray]

So, when Jim down the road cheats on his wife and the church ex'es him and that causes him pain you are not for that. We should just ignore it? How progressive of you. You totally ignore everything in the scriptures with your position.

 

Weeping and wailing come to mind. And I did not say misery, I said pain. So I take it you think pain = misery.

 

I am starting to think I am dialoguing with trolls.

 

I'd advise Jim down the road not to cheat on his wife. That would avoid a whole lot of misery. 

[Gray]

We all are against inflicting misery. Teaching the gospel by the Spirit is not inflicting misery. It is inviting people to Christ.

 

Our teachings about gay people do inflict misery. I think that is clear. 

 

Getting back to John 7:17, if one receives the teachings in faith and does as invited, he will know the teachings are of God, and this contributes to his comfort in the trials and difficulties that come in the process of overcoming the fall and obtaining all the blessings the Lord has in store for him.

 

When one doesn't do as invited and so doesn't develop the confidence that comes of knowing its source, he cannot exercise the faith required to get him through the trials and difficulties imposed by a fallen condition and can easily get distracted by principles he doesn't understand.

 

I think most gay members of the church make a good faith effort to live the doctrine. That is why so many end up leaving the church - the teachings make them miserable. But "wickedness never was happiness" is part of our cannon. I wonder if we really believe it?

[Gray]

If the shoe fits. I can think of a few others in this thread that I have some serious concerns about being Mormon.

 

Are you planning on excommunicating them?

[Russell C McGregor]

"I define it exactly as everyone else..." You honestly crack me up. But it's fun reading.

When you haven't an argument, resort to ridicule.

You're certainly consistent.

Are you calling me a closet apostate in sheep's clothing?

Do you define "believing Latter-day Saint" differently than everyone else does?

And no, that last statement is not an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Then how do you differentiate the cases?

[Russell C McGregor]

Is that him using Argumentum ad populum to defend against the charge of a fallacious "No true Scottsman" statement; the fun just never ends.

Is that you throwing out a drive-by accusation and imagining that you've made it stick?

In the Wikipedia entry for Argumentum ad populum I find the following, under the heading "Exceptions:"

 

Linguistic descriptivists argue that correct grammar, spelling, and expressions are defined by the language's speakers, especially in languages which do not have a central governing body. According to this viewpoint, if an incorrect expression is commonly used, it becomes correct.

 

Furthermore, nobody has even seriously suggested that either believing or faithful Latter-day Saint is an incorrect expression. I've been accused of redefining the terms, but nobody has tried to explain what the terms should mean.

I wonder why?

 

[mfbukowski]

Tell me what you think of this possibility and if it can fit into LDS theology:

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65361-members-excommunicated-who-enter-same-sex-marriages/?p=1209495632

Yes, that is what i have always thought but never voiced at least not here.

 

What is often not said is that there are many heterosexuals who have strong preferences for certain "type" partners or for activities which might be socially unacceptable, yet they live without being able to "fulfill" these fantasies in this life and see these tendencies as great burdens, yet they live with them.

 

Perhaps one is attracted to children, or violent behaviors, or certain other behaviors which are too "weird" to even be voiced or requested of one's loved one.  Perhaps in some circumstances, the tendencies may be so strong that one is unable to have a "normal" relationship.  I have had experience as a bishop with one young man who confessed such strong tendencies and sought counseling.  He was unable to be with his wife without having extremely violent pedofiliac fantasies which he never voiced, even to his wife, or acted upon.  He felt depressed and overwhelmed with these emotions.  Ultimately I referred him for professional counseling.

 

He could not act on his tendencies because we as a culture label them "deviant", and he would certainly never ask his wife, who was small in stature, and would have been shocked to know what he was thinking, to perform such acts.

 

So the question of course becomes how we label "deviance".   Homosexual behavior is now acceptable and condoned.  It was not always that way.

 

But the bottom line is that we all have temptations to be overcome, and some are extremely difficult.   Thank God we are not judged for our temptations.

 

But yes, I think that it is clearly the case that before we even get close to being exalted, our spirits will be in complete control of our bodies.   That is one of the reasons we fast, and really the reason for any disciplined activity- to allow our spirits to rule over our "natural man"

 

THAT is what LDS postulate is what earth life is for.  To me, that is a doctrine of paramount importance.  We are here to become better humans and to master our bodies and our temptations.   We are taught that the fall was a "good thing" PRECISELY BECAUSE it forces us to overcome trials and sin.

 

We are to overcome temptation, not give into it.

 

Is it harder to kick heroin than to overcome these kinds of temptations?  I think kicking heroin is harder.  I know a faithful LDS member who was once a street junkie and overcame it all, but still has problems in other areas that he finds harder than getting off the streets and kicking heroin and all the other drugs he was on.

 

But he WILL prevail because he wants to and is full of the spirit of God.  He is totally devoted, and never misses a priesthood meeting, even all the extra ones his calling demands.  He is extremely motivated to become the best possible human being he can here, and to continue on the other side.

 

I do not know what it is like to be gay, and never will, and I do not mean to pretend to know what it is like.  I do not know what it is like to be black, or to know what other problems vast portions of mankind face every day, that I cannot comprehend.

 

On the other hand, I am heir to all my own set of problems as well, which are uniquely mine.  We all are.

 

All I know is that we WILL be judged for how well we overcome the natural man and become more like God.

 

Only each of us know what that means and can judge ourselves to see if we measure up to that standard.  I think ultimately we WILL judge ourselves and condemn or praise ourselves with perfect knowledge of our faults and our successes.   I am not looking forward to that day, and only hope that God's infinite mercy prevails over what we really deserve, and KNOW that we deserve deep down inside ourselves. 

[rockpond]

When you haven't an argument, resort to ridicule.

You're certainly consistent.

Do you define "believing Latter-day Saint" differently than everyone else does?

Then how do you differentiate the cases?

 

You're confused on who doesn't have an argument

 

And we've already been through explaining your use of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

 

If you can CFR how "everyone else" defines "believing Latter-day Saint" I'll answer your question.

[rockpond]

If the shoe fits. I can think of a few others in this thread that I have some serious concerns about being Mormon.

 

Well fortunately you don't need to concern yourself with the status of people on this board.  Their beliefs belong to them and they don't have to clear them with you or Russell/Pahoran before declaring themselves to be Mormon.