No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I don’t think Isaiah 30:10-11 is about defining happiness according to quality of life scores from an old and arguably biased study.

 

The study was just completed this year. Why arguably biased? It was released through Utah State University. 

 

There is a big difference between heavenly light and secular sparks: “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.”

 

Jesus already gave us a test to compare true and false doctrines. And Mormonism isn't a dualistic religion by nature - heavenly and earthly is all material

 

Two kinds of people use differing kinds of light. In the conclusion, sorrow is represented as the consequence of following human ideas rather than God’s light.

 

So while there is no one true definition of happiness that the entire world agrees on, since this is a Mormon discussion board, I would like to see you make your point in religious or spiritual terms consistent with our scriptures. Alma 41 and John 7 aren’t helping your case.

 

The path to eternal life and exaltation often entails some very unhappy realizations of denied blessings and self-denial during the interim.

 

Let's just say that I don't believe in the gospel of misery - rather I subscribe to the gospel of happiness, and I take seriously the passage that says wickedness never way happiness. I take seriously the idea that by their fruits you may know them. I'm a practical kind of guy, and these scriptural principles appeal to me. 

 

 

 

This is a highly simplistic view.

 

Somone engaged in a hedonistic lifestyle with no thought or regard for long-term consequences of his behavior or of its effect upon others is apt to declare to you that he is far happier than his neighbor who applies to his own behavior discipline, a set of values and an attitude of delayed gratification. What the hedonist is really doing is reacting to the pleasure he feels at the moment, not to any meaningful fulfillment or self-actualization.

 

13 ¶Your words have been ^astout against me, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

 14 Ye have said, It is ^avain to serve God: and what ^bprofit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?

 15 And now we call the ^aproud happy; yea, they that work ^bwickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

 16 ¶Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a ^abook of ^bremembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

 17 And they shall be ^amine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my ^bjewels; and I will ^cspare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

 18 Then shall ye return, and ^adiscern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

 

(Malachi 3:13-18)

Edited May 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

The study was just completed this year. Why arguably biased? It was released through Utah State University.

Maybe you can be more explicit about what you want to show, then (but I see from the other comments that it carries the same weaknesses as the one I Googled).

 

Jesus already gave us a test to compare true and false doctrines.

 What is the false doctrine in Mormonism, and who are the false prophets whose fruits we need to beware?

 

And Mormonism isn't a dualistic religion by nature - heavenly and earthly is all material

Yes, and all things are ultimately spiritual; that is how the Atonement restores eternal consequences (that are usually suspended during the temporal probation) to the spirit that quickens the immortal body accordingly (D&C 88:27-32). This is why the Final Judgement occurs after the temporal mortality.

 

Let's just say that I don't believe in the gospel of misery - rather I subscribe to the gospel of happiness, and I take seriously the passage that says wickedness never way happiness. I take seriously the idea that by their fruits you may know them. I'm a practical kind of guy, and these scriptural principles appeal to me. 

Yes,and all things are ultimately spiritual; that is how the Atonement restores eternal consequences (that are usually suspended during the temporal probation) to the spirit that quickens the immortal body accordingly (D&C 88:27-32). This is why the Final Judgement occurs after the temporal mortality.

 

Matthew 7 and Alma 41 appeal to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Do you really think Alma 41 is about wresting happiness according to the sparks of one's own fire, contrary to God's nature? What do you think your taken-seriously verse 10 means in context of the whole chapter?

[CV75]

This is a highly simplistic view.

 

Somone engaged in a hedonistic lifestyle with no thought or regard for long-term consequences of his behavior or of its effect upon others is apt to declare to you that he his far happier than his neighbor who applies to his own behavior discipline, a set of values and an attitude of delayed gratification. What the hedonist is really doing is reacting to the pleasure he feels at the moment, not to any meaningful fulfillment or self-actualization.

I agree, but I didn't want to use words like shallow, narrow, naive, facile, superficial, etc. to describe the position, LOL!

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree, but I didn't want to use words like shallow, narrow, naive, facile, superficial, etc. to describe the position, LOL!

Well, we don't want to violate any political correctness strictures, of course.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

This is a highly simplistic view.

 

Somone engaged in a hedonistic lifestyle with no thought or regard for long-term consequences of his behavior or of its effect upon others is apt to declare to you that he his far happier than his neighbor who applies to his own behavior discipline, a set of values and an attitude of delayed gratification. What the hedonist is really doing is reacting to the pleasure he feels at the moment, not to any meaningful fulfillment or self-actualization.

 

I don't think hedonism leads to happiness. And gay married couples certainly aren't hedonists. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think hedonism leads to happiness. And gay married couples certainly aren't hedonists. 

But my comment goes in a general way to your remarks about "the gospel of misery," etc.

 

"If it feels good, do it," a popular slogan of the '60s, has always been antithetical to the gospel of Christ.

 

Suppressing the natural man has never been easy -- or particularly pleasant in the moment, whether such suppression involves sexual sin, such as homsexual behavior, or something else. The happiness comes with faith and the eternal perspective.

 

 

Did you see my quotation from Malachi? I added it to my post just now. Here it is again:

 

13 ¶Your words have been ^astout against me, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?

 14 Ye have said, It is ^avain to serve God: and what ^bprofit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?

 15 And now we call the ^aproud happy; yea, they that work ^bwickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

 16 ¶Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a ^abook of ^bremembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

 17 And they shall be ^amine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my ^bjewels; and I will ^cspare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

 18 Then shall ye return, and ^adiscern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

 

(Malachi 3:13-18)

Edited May 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

 

Matthew 7 and Alma 41 appeal to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Do you really think Alma 41 is about wresting happiness according to the sparks of one's own fire, contrary to God's nature? What do you think your taken-seriously verse 10 means in context of the whole chapter?

 

All of us are limited to the our own sparks. Many sparks make a flame, and somewhere in there lies revelation. 

 

Alma 41:10 says the following:

 

 

Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

 

I agree 100%. Wickedness never was happiness. Ergo gay marriage never was wickedness. 

 

Obviously you disagree, but you and I would probably agree on a lot of moral issues. I don't believe that promiscuity or fornication bring happiness. Those are pleasure seeking activities. But marriage is not primarily about pleasure, whether it's gay or straight marriage. 

[Scott Lloyd]

All of us are limited to the our own sparks. Many sparks make a flame, and somewhere in there lies revelation. 

 

Alma 41:10 says the following:

 

 

Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

 

I agree 100%. Wickedness never was happiness. Ergo gay marriage never was wickedness. 

 

Obviously you disagree, but you and I would probably agree on a lot of moral issues. I don't believe that promiscuity or fornication bring happiness. Those are pleasure seeking activities. But marriage is not primarily about pleasure, whether it's gay or straight marriage. 

Gay "marraige" involves homosexual beahvior, which is a sexual sin, i.e. wickedness. You said it yourself: "Wickedness never was happiness."

 

I draw your attention to the quote in my sig line from Elder Nelson. And the one from Elder Neil L. Andersen.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

But my comment goes in a general way to your remarks about "the gospel of misery," etc.

 

"If it feels good, do it," a popular slogan of the '60s, has always been antithetical to the gospel of Christ.

 

Suppressing the natural man has never been easy -- or particularly pleasant in the moment. The happiness comes with faith and the eternal perspective.

 

 

Did you see my quotation from Malachi? I added it to my post just now. Here it is again:

 

(Malachi 3:13-18)

 

Malachi 3 doesn't describe any of the gay couples I know. They get the same joy out of marriage that I do.

 

It's not really about feeling good - it's about happiness. The kind of genuine happiness that lasts, not momentary pleasure. I believe that gay marriage is just as godly as straight marriage. 

 

Some people think that righteousness never was happiness. Or that Jesus' yolk is heavy and burdensome. Or that we can't discern a true teaching from a false one by living it and testing it.  That's what I mean by the gospel of misery. It's really a depressing world view. 

[Gray]

Gay "marraige" involves homosexual beahvior, which is a sexual sin, i.e. wickedness. You said it yourself: "Wickedness never was happiness."

 

Obviously it's not a sin. We can look at the results and exclude gay marriage from the "wickedness" category. 

[Gray]

And yet, millions of hetereosexual singles have managed. Are you saying homosexuals are incapable of controlling themselves? Seems you your opinion of them is less than those who believe the practice is wrong. 

 

It's not about controlling yourself or not controlling yourself. It's really about finding your home, and finding your family. Sure some people manage without family, but it's hardly ideal. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

I can think of quite a number of other ways to collect samples, it just would take a lot more effort than having people come to you.

 

And the size of the group is meaningless if it is collected poorly.

 

If one goes to Mormon Women Stand and asks for suvery responses from their members, do you think that even if you got 6000 women to respond (taken the number off of the facebook page stat of those who are talking about the fb page) you could claim this was a good selection of the opinions of women in the Church?

 

What arena did Dehlin etc. use to ensure that he got an accurate percentage of active homosexual LDS who were in mixed gender marriages?  What reasoning did he use to evaluate his percentages that he got?

 

I think you'll have to ready the study to find out the details. Not sure if it's fully available yet. 

[Gray]

Media organizations are accustomed to employing professional pollsters who do scientific sampling conforming to a strict methodology, precisely to avoid this sort of self-selected field of response, symptomatic of what is know as coverage bias or self-selection bias.

 

Sampling and polling are not as simple as a lot of people think; otherwise, anyone could do it.

 

This kind of sampling, while not scientific, is still of scientific use. And I'm not sure how you'd do a scientific sampling over the phone. How would you get people in Utah to admit over the phone to a stranger to being gay? 

[Scott Lloyd]

Malachi 3 doesn't describe any of the gay couples I know. They get the same joy out of marriage that I do.

 

A hedonist would say he gets as much joy out of his lifestyle as you say you do from marriage.

 

It's not really about feeling good - it's about happiness. The kind of genuine happiness that lasts, not momentary pleasure. I believe that gay marriage is just as godly as straight marriage. 

 

 

Your declaring it does not make it so. Again, see the quotes from the apostles in my sig line.

 

 

Some people think that righteousness never was happiness. Or that Jesus' yolk is heavy and burdensome. Or that we can't discern a true teaching from a false one by living it and testing it.  That's what I mean by the gospel of misery. It's really a depressing world view.

 

Well, those who say that lack understanding, don't they? Hence the quote in Malachi.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It's not about controlling yourself or not controlling yourself. It's really about finding your home, and finding your family. Sure some people manage without family, but it's hardly ideal. 

 

And sometimes life is "hardly ideal". That fact doesn't excuse us from obeying the LORD in all things that He has commanded us.

You believe one should do whatever they want in this life to achieve "happiness".

I believe one should do whatever they can in this life to please the LORD, and attain that eternal happiness that will last throughout eternity,

This conversation has become redundant at this point- so I am going to bow out. Good luck to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

This kind of sampling, while not scientific, is still of scientific use. And I'm not sure how you'd do a scientific sampling over the phone. How would you get people in Utah to admit over the phone to a stranger to being gay? 

If it's not scientific, it's not reliable. A statistician will tell you that.

 

And if you can't get the kind of information you need over the phone, then you need to find another way to do it, not proceed and then try to mislead people into believing what  you have come up with is reliable.

[Gray]

A hedonist would say he gets as much joy out of his lifestyle as you say you do from marriage.

 

Then I suppose you'd need to collect quality of life scores to verify. 

 

Your declaring it does not make it so. Again, see the quotes from the apostles in my sig line.

 

I'm well aware of their opinion. They're certainly entitled to it. 

 

 

Well, those who say that lack understanding, don't they? Hence the quote in Malachi.

 

Yes, they do. But still some people are willing to load our gay brothers and sisters with burdens hard to be borne.

[Gray]

 

And sometimes life is "hardly ideal". That fact doesn't excuse us from obeying the LORD in all things that He has commanded us.

 

The Lord has not made His opinion on this issue known. So that leaves us with opinion

You believe one should do whatever they want in this life to achieve "happiness".

 

Yes, I'm with Joseph Smith on that one.

I believe one should do whatever they can in this life to please the LORD, and attain that eternal happiness that will last throughout eternity,

 

If you think you can please God by doing whatever you can to achieve misery, I feel bad for you

This conversation has become redundant at this point- so I am going to bow out. Good luck to you.

[Gray]

If it's not scientific, it's not reliable. A statistician will tell you that.

 

And if you can't get the kind of information you need over the phone, then you need to find another way to do it, not proceed and then try to mislead people into believing what  you have come up with is reliable.

 

It's reliable data on 1600 gay Mormons and their experiences. This kind of sampling is used by social scientists 

 

But if you think there's a problem with it, you could always publish a refutation 

[Calm]

I think you'll have to ready the study to find out the details. Not sure if it's fully available yet. 

I have read some of it, focusing on the sampling method.

 

I have not seen the actual data presented.  It is possible that the data itself has more detail than how he chooses to summarize it, but why that would be, I don't know.

[Calm]

It's reliable data on 1600 gay Mormons and their experiences. This kind of sampling is used by social scientists 

 

But if you think there's a problem with it, you could always publish a refutation 

Dehlin himself in his study condemns those who use the same sampling technique as "convenience sampling" with smaller groups.  As of yet I have not seen why he seems to believe that just making the group larger is sufficient to make the sampling any different.

Edited May 15, 2015 by calmoriah

[Gray]

Dehlin himself in his study condemns those who use the same sampling technique as "convenience sampling" with smaller groups.  As of yet I have not seen why he seems to believe that just making the group larger is sufficient to make the sampling any different.

 

I'm not a scientist of any stripe, but here's something I found on convenience sampling:

 

https://explorable.com/convenience-sampling

 

There seem to be advantages and disadvantages to it. However I think this is the only kind of sampling you could use and get this kind of data. Especially as long as gay people continue to be marginalized in their communities. 

[CV75]

All of us are limited to the our own sparks. Many sparks make a flame, and somewhere in there lies revelation.

Exactly—Isaiah 50 when applied to revelation, speaks to two kinds of that, too! The first is eternal and the second only temporal (yes, even though both are spiritual).

 

Alma 41:10 says the following:

 

I agree 100%. Wickedness never was happiness. Ergo gay marriage never was wickedness.

I asked you your thoguhts about the verse in contst of the whole chapter. The only way you seem to understand it is to isolate and misapply it by equating temporal with eternal, which the counsel in the chapter enjoins not to! By doing so, you undermine your case for any eternal principle, including marriage.

 

 

Obviously you disagree, but you and I would probably agree on a lot of moral issues. I don't believe that promiscuity or fornication bring happiness. Those are pleasure seeking activities. But marriage is not primarily about pleasure, whether it's gay or straight marriage. 

Wickedness, or the nature contrary to God's, never was eternal happiness. It can certainly bring temporal happiness to the person that limits his view to his own sparks (see Scott's description of hedonism, for example), and thus even bring an artificial spiritual happiness for the time being, whcih is why people engage in immoral behavior, poor choices, etc.

 

[ttribe]

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.

 

 

Wait, getting rep points from the "wrong" people is an indicator that someone isn't the type of Mormon they claim to be? 

 

<----[Mind.Blown.]

 

 

That is not what I said was it?

 

Well, really, I was just trying to tweak you a bit because I don't know how seriously anyone can really take the whole Rep Points thing, but now you have me genuinely scratching my head.  How is my post not a summarized restatement of the part of your post I bolded above?  I used the word "wrong" to summarize the group of people you were referring to as non-Mormon or ex-Mormon, I believe.  I stated it was just an "indicator," not outright proof.  What did I miss on your point, there?

[ttribe]

If it's not scientific, it's not reliable. A statistician will tell you that.

 

And if you can't get the kind of information you need over the phone, then you need to find another way to do it, not proceed and then try to mislead people into believing what  you have come up with is reliable.

 

 

Dehlin himself in his study condemns those who use the same sampling technique as "convenience sampling" with smaller groups.  As of yet I have not seen why he seems to believe that just making the group larger is sufficient to make the sampling any different.

 

Let me just preface my comments by stating I don't have a dog in the fight regarding the gay marriage issue being discussed here, but I do know a few things about sampling, so if it's okay for me to comment I'll just throw a few things out there.

 

Scott - your comment that "If it's not scientific, it's not reliable. A statistician will tell you that." is not technically correct.  Another key element to determining reliability of the results of a sampling activity is the question you are trying to answer.  For example, using the discussion at hand - If the poll was attempting to provide insight on the entire population of Mormons who claim SSA, then a scientific sampling method would almost be a necessity to provide information on that entire population.  However, if it is only attempting to provide insight into the views of those who actually answered the poll, then it may be reliable for that purpose (assuming proper framing of questions, etc.); it is not reliable for the purpose of generalizing to an entire population, however,

 

The likelihood of having your results influenced by some bias (e.g. self-selection, etc.) is increased when a sample is non-statistical; there's no doubt about that.  But one could still glean insight from a poll that is narrow and voluntary as long as you are careful about not generalizing the results.

 

Cal - your question on sample size.  Sample sizes can have a dramatic effect on the usefulness of your results.  I suspect (but don't know) that John D. read Quasi-Experimentation by Cook & Campbell (http://www.amazon.com/Quasi-Experimentation-Design-Analysis-Issues-Settings/dp/0395307902) in his Ph.D. program; I know I did.  There is discussion on the importance of proper sample sizes relative to the use of alternative non-statistical sampling methods.  Whether John D. is correct in his criticism, I have no idea; don't have the time to figure it out.  However, suffice it to say that most of these questions on sampling issues can't be resolved by a few posts on an Internet message board and shortcut criticisms on either side really miss the mark.