No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[CV75]

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

No, they do not – that is clear. A teaching only has power according to one’s receptiveness or resistance gives it. In the case of Gospel teachings, this would be one’s faith or wickedness (respectively).

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?

I think so too, which is why that is not why any leave the Church. That is a far more complex issue (see the threads about faith crises, for example). The proper application of John 7:17 clears it up perfectly. There are so many wonderful teachings, and all so integrated, that no one need accuse the Church of forcing people into hopelessness over their struggle with any particular point they have singled out from the rest as problematic (they all tie back to God).

 

Alma 41:10 is an answer to missing the mark on an important point of doctrine on the resurrection (see verse 9--and the whole chapter, for that matter), leading to bad choices—Corianton also got it mixed up and got all "worried" about it! Alma is comparing the nature of the carnal man with the nature of God which man can enjoy, which nature is confirmed after this probation in the resurrection and reflected in a kingdom of glory (according to D&C).

[Gray]

No, they do not – that is clear. A teaching only has power according to one’s receptiveness or resistance gives it. In the case of Gospel teachings, this would be one’s faith or wickedness (respectively).

I think so too, which is why that is not why any leave the Church. That is a far more complex issue (see the threads about faith crises, for example). The proper application of John 7:17 clears it up perfectly. There are so many wonderful teachings, and all so integrated, that no one need accuse the Church of forcing people into hopelessness over their struggle with any particular point they have singled out from the rest as problematic (they all tie back to God).

 

Alma 41:10 is an answer to missing the mark on an important point of doctrine on the resurrection (see verse 9--and the whole chapter, for that matter), leading to bad choices—Corianton also got it mixed up and got all "worried" about it! Alma is comparing the nature of the carnal man with the nature of God which man can enjoy, which nature is confirmed after this probation in the resurrection and reflected in a kingdom of glory (according to D&C).

 

I would ask that you consider the implications of this study:

 

http://fox13now.com/2015/04/29/usu-study-examines-psychological-impact-of-being-lgbt-and-mormon/%C2'>

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Nope, but to be taken serious is another thing.

 

When some one claims to be a believing true blue good as gold Mormon, but had a revelation that SSM should happen in the temple and he is not authorized to such a revelation. I have to wonder who they really are. When some one praises known apostates and ex Mormons I have to wonder who they really are. When some proclaims that certain doctrines should be taken up that go against the gospel in the name of " we just need a revelation for God's plan on his homosexual children", I have to wonder who they are. When some one gets rep points constantly from posters on this board that are not Mormon or are ex Mormon I have to wonder who they are. When other posters that claims to be Mormon offer up other radical ideas that you give rep points to I have to wonder who you are. When those same posters give you rep points I have to wonder who you are.

 

You claim to be LDS true believing. Your words tell me something different. And that is were the problem is. Other people might not be able to see you for the ideas you espouse. That is why I am here. To point it out.

 

Your position is significantly more cunning than that of the regular troll.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

Nope, but to be taken serious is another thing.

When some one claims to be a believing true blue good as gold Mormon, but had a revelation that SSM should happen in the temple and he is not authorized to such a revelation. I have to wonder who they really are. When some one praises known apostates and ex Mormons I have to wonder who they really are. When some proclaims that certain doctrines should be taken up that go against the gospel in the name of " we just need a revelation for God's plan on his homosexual children", I have to wonder who they are. When some one gets rep points constantly from posters on this board that are not Mormon or are ex Mormon I have to wonder who they are. When other posters that claims to be Mormon offer up other radical ideas that you give rep points to I have to wonder who you are. When those same posters give you rep points I have to wonder who you are.

You claim to be LDS true believing. Your words tell me something different. And that is were the problem is. Other people might not be able to see you for the ideas you espouse. That is why I am here. To point it out.

Your position is significantly more cunning than that of the regular troll.

You've made some errors in your description of me but that isn't unexpected coming from you. After all that you've written on these threads and how you've presented yourself... to have you wonder and recognize the difference in our beliefs and approach to Mormonism is not disconcerting. What would be a problem is if you and I agreed too much.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nope, but to be taken serious is another thing.

 

When some one claims to be a believing true blue good as gold Mormon, but had a revelation that SSM should happen in the temple and he is not authorized to such a revelation. I have to wonder who they really are. When some one praises known apostates and ex Mormons I have to wonder who they really are. When some proclaims that certain doctrines should be taken up that go against the gospel in the name of " we just need a revelation for God's plan on his homosexual children", I have to wonder who they are. When some one gets rep points constantly from posters on this board that are not Mormon or are ex Mormon I have to wonder who they are. When other posters that claims to be Mormon offer up other radical ideas that you give rep points to I have to wonder who you are. When those same posters give you rep points I have to wonder who you are.

 

You claim to be LDS true believing. Your words tell me something different. And that is were the problem is. Other people might not be able to see you for the ideas you espouse. That is why I am here. To point it out.

 

Your position is significantly more cunning than that of the regular troll.

Your whole post is a caricature and a poor one at that.

"When some one claims to be a believing true blue good as gold Mormon, but had a revelation that SSM should happen in the temple and he is not authorized to such a revelation."

No one has claimed such a revelation. What I say - "The same spirit that tells me the church is good and right for me, tells me that committed same sex relationships are not bad. The church teaches otherwise. I don't know what to do with that. I hope that one day we receive further light and knowledge on this issue, but I recognize its not my place to receive such. I wish we had such knowledge now, and that it allowed for same sex sealings, but I don't know how to make that work with LDS theology and I don't think it will ever happen."

What you seem to hear "Blah Blah Blah, I am an apostate that wants to desecrate the temple, also I have received revelation for the church and I know the prophet is wrong"

 

When some one praises known apostates and ex Mormons I have to wonder who they really are.

No one here has unequvically praised any "known" apostate or ex Mormon that I am aware of. Would you say that because someone is an apostate everything about that person is unpraiseworthy? Why bring it up then?

 

When some proclaims that certain doctrines should be taken up that go against the gospel

No one has done this.

in the name of " we just need a revelation for God's plan on his homosexual children",

Are you opposed to further revelation here?

 

When some one gets rep points constantly from posters on this board that are not Mormon or are ex Mormon I have to wonder who they are. When other posters that claims to be Mormon offer up other radical ideas that you give rep points to I have to wonder who you are. When those same posters give you rep points I have to wonder who you are.

I'm not even sure why this matters. Shouldn't ideas be judged on their merits, not who gives it rep points?

 

You claim to be LDS true believing. Your words tell me something different. And that is were the problem is. Other people might not be able to see you for the ideas you espouse. That is why I am here. To point it out.

 

Your position is significantly more cunning than that of the regular troll.

It must be great to be able to see so clearly to remove those motes! Carry on.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

No, I don't believe I am.

 

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

Not unless "explaining" is a newly minted synonym for "asserting."

Do you really think repeated assertions are sufficient to prove your case?

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

Believing: Trusting, having faith in, or assenting to the truth of something.

Latter-day Saint: A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's what the words mean.

Do you have a different idea?

[tonie]

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:"

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?

Russell/pahoran, You use fallacy to cover fallacy.

You used what amounts to "everyone believes" which is the fallacy.

and what is pathetic of you, is that according to your self appointed wisdom, anyone who does nit agree with you is an apostate.

Edited May 15, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

Only Jude has been interpreted that way, but that requires a twisted reading of "strange/other/different" flesh.

 

Have you read the story? Three angels visit lot. The towns people come bang on Lot's door and want to gang rape them. 

There is no indication that the men of Sodom see the visitors as anything but other men, there is no indication that they find anything remarkable about them; Lot does not identify them as angels (if one chooses to assume that in this case, the "angels" reference in the first verse of the chapter is referring to something different than mortal men acting as God's messengers) either, but treats them as he would treat men:

 

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV

 

And it is a special form of blindness.  Who struck blind wouldn't in panic be reacting to that instead of still looking for the door to Lot's house so they could abuse those within?  It sounds more like the awareness of Lot's home/door was removed from them in such a way they didn't realize that something was really wrong...otherwise they would have most likely left in fear or at least commented on their inability to find it.  Plus his sons-in-law didn't believe him, which surely they would have if all the crowd that had been attacking Lot's home had been notably changed.  Instead they respond as if there is nothing special going on, again seems like they saw the messengers/angels as just ordinary men.

 

PS:  Pardon me please if I am misunderstanding the point being made.

Edited May 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[rodheadlee]

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

It has nothing to do with knowing gay people and everything to do with how the Lord feels about SSM in the temple. I have had occasion to meet and know quit a few gay people. I don't think any less of them than I do myself, i have my own problems to work out with the Lord.

[Teancum]

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.

Apparently there are lots of different spirits out there speaking. Which one is right?

[rockpond]

No, I don't believe I am.

Not unless "explaining" is a newly minted synonym for "asserting."

Do you really think repeated assertions are sufficient to prove your case?

Believing: Trusting, having faith in, or assenting to the truth of something.

Latter-day Saint: A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's what the words mean.

Do you have a different idea?

No, I'm not "repeatedly asserting", I'm recognizing the consensus here on your thread that agrees you've used the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I fit your definition here of believing Latter-day Saint and yet you assert that I am not. It's getting comical.

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell/pahoran, You use fallacy to cover fallacy.

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

You used what amounts to "everyone believes" which is the fallacy.

That's false.

"Everyone defines" is not "everyone believes," and you know it.

"Everyone defines" refers to how an expression is used, not to whether an assertion is true or false.

Either you don't understand what you are asserting, or you are asserting it in defiance of the facts.

Which is it?

and what is pathetic of you, is that according to your self appointed wisdom, anyone who does nit agree with you is an apostate.

Wrong again.

You are batting zero today, Tonie.

[Russell C McGregor]

No, I'm not "repeatedly asserting", I'm recognizing the consensus here on your thread that agrees you've used the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Just a little earlier, you and Tonie were guffawing together about the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.

Well guess what? I didn't use it, but you just have.

And once again, you use words in idiosyncratic ways. "Recognising" does not mean "assert without support," and "consensus" does not mean "some people agree with rockpond."

I fit your definition here of believing Latter-day Saint and yet you assert that I am not. It's getting comical.

If it's so comical, why are you getting angrier?

[rockpond]

Just a little earlier, you and Tonie were guffawing together about the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.

Well guess what? I didn't use it, but you just have.

And once again, you use words in idiosyncratic ways. "Recognising" does not mean "assert without support," and "consensus" does not mean "some people agree with rockpond."

If it's so comical, why are you getting angrier?

I'm not getting angry. I'm telling you, this thread has gotten hilarious. I'm here for the entertainment factor now.

You started this thread, presumably, to debate the accusation against you of using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Now, in citing the consensus on this thread I wasn't saying everyone was agreeing with me (that's your technique, I won't steal it). I was, however, pointing out that the majority of the commenters here agree that you were guilty of engaging that fallacy. And what's so funny is that you've now doubled down on it right here in this thread.

On top of that, what absolutely fascinates me is your obsession with declaring me unbelieving, unfaithful, and apostate. It is starting to feel like it really bothers you that a recommend-holding High Priest could possibly have views like mine and not have some kind of subversive agenda. Is it important for you to believe that I am not who I claim?

[Teancum]

Just a little earlier, you and Tonie were guffawing together about the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.Well guess what? I didn't use it, but you just have.And once again, you use words in idiosyncratic ways. "Recognising" does not mean "assert without support," and "consensus" does not mean "some people agree with rockpond."If it's so comical, why are you getting angrier?

I see no anger in Rockpond's comments, writing or tone. In fact he is exceedingly calm and patient with the tripe that you often write. Much more so than I would be.

But then am just an angry, raging apostate.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Teancum

[CV75]

I would ask that you consider the implications of this study:

Must be from "Seinfeld": It's about absolutely nothing!

 

The link is missing -- please just summarize: I'm sure I've seen such studies before.

[Gray]

Must be from "Seinfeld": It's about absolutely nothing!

 

The link is missing -- please just summarize: I'm sure I've seen such studies before.

 

Essentially gay people who try to marry the opposite sex have a quality of life comparable to someone living with lupus. On the other hand, those who enter a same sex marriage have a quality of life slightly higher than straight married couples. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

It has nothing to do with knowing gay people and everything to do with how the Lord feels about SSM in the temple. I have had occasion to meet and know quit a few gay people. I don't think any less of them than I do myself, i have my own problems to work out with the Lord.

 

When it comes to softening our hearts about people who are different than us, it actually has everything to do with getting to know the "other". Of course not everyone is amenable to having their hearts softened. 

 

As far as anyone knows, the Lord has not said anything on the topic, so I view that as a red herring. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Gray

[rodheadlee]

l

 

Apparently there are lots of different spirits out there speaking. Which one is right?.

You have to ask yourself a few questions. Will God ever sanctify the male homosexual act? Will injecting the sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being ever be sanctified? This is an abomination. What does desolate mean? No fruit of your loins. No children to raise up to be just like you, to be created in your image. I am desolate, I know about how it feels. I have helped take care of elderly parents and usher them into the next life. I have no children, who will do it for me? No one..

[Gray]

 Will injecting the sacred seed of life up the waste system of another human being ever be sanctified? This is an abomination. 

 

Unfortunately most objections to gay people come down to this - you think it's icky, so it must be immoral. Personally I don't understand what straight women find attractive about men. Ew, men! That doesn't mean that women are immoral just because they're attracted to something I am not. 

 

Regarding your specific example, straight Latter-Day Saint married couples can engage in that activity all they like, and still maintain all the benefits of full membership. There is no current policy or teaching to stop them, and no one is going to pry into their sex life. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Gray

[CV75]

Essentially gay people who try to marry the opposite sex have a quality of life comparable to someone living with lupus. On the other hand, those who enter a same sex marriage have a quality of life slightly higher than straight married couples. 

Does this study define "quality of life" in the same sense that Alma 41:10 defines "happiness," and is a gay person marrying (whether someone of the same or opposite sex) doing the will of the Father according to John 7:17?

[Gray]

Does this study define "quality of life" in the same sense that Alma 41:10 defines "happiness," and is a gay person marrying (whether someone of the same or opposite sex) doing the will of the Father according to John 7:17?

 

Not sure about that level of detail regarding how quality of life is determined, but you're certainly not happy if you have low quality of life scores.

 

Regarding your question about John 7:17, I think the answer has to be yes. 

[tonie]

I've been accused of redefining the terms, but nobody has tried to explain what the terms should mean.

I wonder why?

 

 

I do not need to wonder why no one has attempted to explain/define what being a "faithful Latter-day Saint".

 

I suspect it is humility, which recognizes that Christ determines who is "faithful",  that precludes others from making such statements.

Edited May 15, 2015 by tonie

[CV75]

Not sure about that level of detail regarding how quality of life is determined, but you're certainly not happy if you have low quality of life scores.

Quality of life scores usually deal with "objective" physical and mental health measures... and many healthy people are unhappy and unhealthy people are happy. So one is not "certainly" unhappy with low scores.

 

Alma is speaking of spiritual things and the study doesn't address LDS teachings.

 

Regarding your question about John 7:17, I think the answer has to be yes. 

Actually, if one is open-minded, the answer has to be "yes," "no" or "depends" with regards to John 7:17. Unfortunately you have bundled all LDS gay people into one stereotype.

 

Now that I think of it, the study really is about nothing!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Gray- 

So you basic working premise is "If it make you happy, it can't be that bad." ?

People do lots of things thinking it makes them "happy."