No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[jwhitlock]

Said bullying on your part was the reason why I created the thread asking for you treat me "basic courtesy".  

 

Ironic.

[Russell C McGregor]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.....someone better let Pahoran know this rule.

Call for references that Pahoran ever made IRL claims about himself which nobody could check, and then argued from those claims as if they had evidentiary value.

In default of which, kindly do us the "basic courtesy" of refraining from nasty, off-topic drive-by remarks.

Thank you.

[Russell C McGregor]

The latter... but he will claim otherwise.

What was it you said before, Canard?

Was a mixed race temple marriage possible before 1978? No, not at all. Is it now? Have things changed?

Pardon my (ahem) "obtuseness," but who was it who claimed that mixed race Temple marriages were "not at all" possible before 1978, Canard?

Just how qualified was that "not at all" supposed to be, Canard?

Who's really being "deliberately obtuse," Canard?

[Russell C McGregor]

I don't recall Pahoran ever doing that (arguing from his own claims as though they had evidentiary value). That would be an instance of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

But you have trouble with the meaning of the phrase <begging the question>, don't you? I seem to recall you being involved in a discussion about that here once upon a time.

I've just had a look at the thread you mention.

Remarkably, someone who disagreed with you was relying upon the argumentum ad populum fallacy in order to support their position.

Almost as if they were trying to "use fallacy to cover fallacy."

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[ttribe]

No.But it stands to reason that members of the same team will cheer each other on.

Interesting. I had no idea discussing the doctrines of salvation was a team sport. Do tell me more.

[Russell C McGregor]

Interesting. I had no idea discussing the doctrines of salvation was a team sport. Do tell me more.

 

Feel free to start your own thread to discuss the question.

[ttribe]

Feel free to start your own thread to discuss the question.

(Shrug) You introduced the concept into the discussion. I just found it intriguing that you might actually harbor such a view.

[yootaw]

What was it you said before, Canard?

Pardon my (ahem) "obtuseness," but who was it who claimed that mixed race Temple marriages were "not at all" possible before 1978, Canard?

Just how qualified was that "not at all" supposed to be, Canard?

Who's really being "deliberately obtuse," Canard?

I think it would be fair to describe Canard's generalization as imprecise, but not obtuse. Perhaps there's a different meaning in NZ?  Here's the first definition for obtuse that came up in a google search for me:

 

"annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand"

 

That does not describe Canard as I read him.  

Edited May 17, 2015 by yootaw

[canard78]

What was it you said before, Canard?

Pardon my (ahem) "obtuseness," but who was it who claimed that mixed race Temple marriages were "not at all" possible before 1978, Canard?

Just how qualified was that "not at all" supposed to be, Canard?

Who's really being "deliberately obtuse," Canard?

It amuses me that you're celebrating a victory that is irrelevant to this topic.

My discussion of mixed race married was (and always has been) about mixed marriage between a black and white couple.

The fact you're latching onto semantics as an arguement and avoiding discussing the changed doctrine on marriage between blacks and whites would suggest to me that you know it has changed but can't bear to admit it.

So to return to the topic in question. Have past prophets taught that marriage between a black and white person is against the doctrine of the church? Do they teach that now? Could a black woman and white man get married in the temple pre-1978? Can they now? Has the doctrine on this type of marriage changed? And finally, if a member in the 1960s or early 1970s held the hope that one day that doctrine would be changed through revelation, would they be a faithful/believing Latter-day Saint or an unfaithful/unbelieving one?

[Russell C McGregor]

I think it would be fair to describe Canard's generalization as imprecise, but not obtuse. Perhaps there's a different meaning in NZ?  Here's the first definition for obtuse that came up in a google search for me:

 

"annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand"

 

That does not describe Canard as I read him.

 

Sigh.

 

Canard trumpeted that there was a "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage.)"  I then asked him if he thought black and white people were the only races there were, or whether he was unaware of the fact that mixed race marriages had been regularly happening from the beginning.

 

Teancum picked out the second part only, and snarled that I was being "intentionally obtuse" by not realising that he was talking only about blacks and whites.

 

Canard vigorously agreed.

Do you get it, now?

His obtuseness doesn't consist in his "generalization," but in his smug assumption that I'm being "obtuse" by taking him at his emphatic, unqualified word.

Any questions?

Edited May 17, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

It amuses me that you're celebrating a victory that is irrelevant to this topic.

My discussion of mixed race married was (and always has been) about mixed marriage between a black and white couple.

Yes, I thought so.

IOW, you simply failed to realise that there are any other races.

And you counterfactually claimed that there was some "doctrine banning" such marriages.

And then, when challenged, you equally counterfactually tried to claim that it was I who "brought up banning." But it was not; it was you.

And you failed entirely to support that claim.

 

The fact you're latching onto semantics as an arguement and avoiding discussing the changed doctrine on marriage between blacks and whites would suggest to me that you know it has changed but can't bear to admit it.

Do try to avoid reading minds, Canard. You only succeed in projecting your own mental processes onto others, thus showing what they are.

 

So to return to the topic in question. Have past prophets taught that marriage between a black and white person is against the doctrine of the church? Do they teach that now?

According to you, there is still "a current church publication teaching the young men of the church to avoid mixed race marriages."

 

And this despite the fact that such marriages are routinely performed in Temples throughout the Church.

What does that mean about the previous statements, Canard? Are you still going to maintain that they provide sufficient evidence for a "ban" given that (1) there is at least one current statement to similar effect, and (2) there is clearly no such "ban" now?

 

Could a black woman and white man get married in the temple pre-1978? Can they now? Has the doctrine on this type of marriage changed?

Has it? Let's look into that, shall we?

Canard, are you perhaps very deliberately and artificially selecting "a black woman and white man" for your example, in order to pretend that it supports your claim about "inter-racial marriage?"

Was there ever a time when such a couple could not be married in the Temple, but a monoracial both-black couple could be?

Or perhaps not?

After June 1978, when such a couple could have a Temple marriage, how much longer did it take before a "mixed race" one black, one non-black couple be married in the Temple?

If you genuinely don't know, here's a little hint: do you think it might have been immediately?

So was there really a "ban" on some "kind of marriage," or was there actually an issue with the eligibility of one (or both) of the parties to enter the Temple?

And when the eligibility issue was resolved, what did that do to the "ban" you are trying to claim existed?

Did it have to be formally lifted, or did it simply evaporate, because it never existed in the first place?

Follow-up questions:

Were bishops in the Church forbidden to perform civil marriages for both-black couples prior to June 1978?

Were bishops in the Church forbidden to perform civil marriages for mixed one black, one non-black couples prior to June 1978?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against black members who married other black members outside the Temple?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against black members who married non-black members outside the Temple?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against non-black members who married black members outside the Temple?

So exactly what "doctrine" was there "banning inter-racial marriage," Canard?

 

And finally, if a member in the 1960s or early 1970s held the hope that one day that doctrine would be changed through revelation, would they be a faithful/believing Latter-day Saint or an unfaithful/unbelieving one?

Given (and it is a given) that there was no "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage)" as you claim, but only an eligibility issue around Temple entry; and given that that issue was tied to the Priesthood ban; and given that it was authoritative, official LDS doctrine that the Priesthood ban would someday be lifted... what do you think?

Are you really that desperate to find something -- anything at all -- that even looks parallel to the Church's principle-based rejection of "same sex marriage" that you are willing to stretch that far?

Regards,

Russell

[Teancum]

I think it would be fair to describe Canard's generalization as imprecise, but not obtuse. Perhaps there's a different meaning in NZ?  Here's the first definition for obtuse that came up in a google search for me:

 

"annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand"

 

That does not describe Canard as I read him.

Russell knows quite well that Canard was referring to black persons and some other race. It seemed pretty clear since he had been discussing priesthood and temple restrictions.

Russell just likes to play games.

[Teancum]

deleted

Edited May 17, 2015 by Teancum

[Vance]

1) Brighton has not been destroyed by fire

 

2) Modern news sources describe it as the UK's gay capital

 

Draw your own conclusions.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't or can't.    So what was your point? 

[jwhitlock]

So was there really a "ban" on some "kind of marriage," or was there actually an issue with the eligibility of one (or both) of the parties to enter the Temple?

And when the eligibility issue was resolved, what did that do to the "ban" you are trying to claim existed?

Did it have to be formally lifted, or did it simply evaporate, because it never existed in the first place?

Follow-up questions:

Were bishops in the Church forbidden to perform civil marriages for both-black couples prior to June 1978?

Were bishops in the Church forbidden to perform civil marriages for mixed one black, one non-black couples prior to June 1978?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against black members who married other black members outside the Temple?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against black members who married non-black members outside the Temple?

Prior to June 1978, what disciplinary sanctions did the Church bring against non-black members who married black members outside the Temple?

So exactly what "doctrine" was there "banning inter-racial marriage," Canard?

 

 

This needs to be repeated and emphasized. The point being made here is significant in demonstrating that SSM is NOT analogous to any situation involving marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Canard's faux pas concerning "interracial marriages" has ironically clearly proven something he didn't intend.

[jwhitlock]

Russell knows quite well that Canard was referring to black persons and some other race. It seemed pretty clear since he had been discussing priesthood and temple restrictions.

Russell just likes to play games.

 

It also needs to be emphasized that this is a clear fabrication on your part. Canard, intentionally or not, phrased it as "interracial marriages" in his post, which subsequently backfired on him.

 

Rather than playing games, Russell has raised valid questions and perspectives concerning the history of marriage overall in the church that make any comparison of SSM to blacks and the temple invalid.

 

Since you seem to think it's fair game to impute motivations to Russel, I'll do you the same favor.

 

You and yours seem to recognize that the real fact in all this is that marriage involving one or both spouses being black has never been disallowed by the church. There have been faithful married couples in the church where one or both members were black, and there has never been an official injunction requiring disciplinary action against such. Those members have remained in full fellowship, with the exception of being able to go to the temple to be sealed - until 1978. It's clear that you all know that, and can't respond cogently to that, so instead you are engaging in the time-honored, and dishonest, tactic of shooting the messenger.

 

So to be clear, SSM has never, ever been sanctioned in any way, shape or form between members of the church. Any who do so are subject to disciplinary action. There is no indication anywhere that it's ever going to change.

 

It's a totally different situation than "interracial marriages", to use Canard's phrasing.

[Tacenda]

It also needs to be emphasized that this is a clear fabrication on your part. Canard, intentionally or not, phrased it as "interracial marriages" in his post, which subsequently backfired on him.

Rather than playing games, Russell has raised valid questions and perspectives concerning the history of marriage overall in the church that make any comparison of SSM to blacks and the temple invalid.

Since you seem to think it's fair game to impute motivations to Russel, I'll do you the same favor.

You and yours seem to recognize that the real fact in all this is that marriage involving one or both spouses being black has never been disallowed by the church. There have been faithful married couples in the church where one or both members were black, and there has never been an official injunction requiring disciplinary action against such. Those members have remained in full fellowship, with the exception of being able to go to the temple to be sealed - until 1978. It's clear that you all know that, and can't respond cogently to that, so instead you are engaging in the time-honored, and dishonest, tactic of shooting the messenger.

So to be clear, SSM has never, ever been sanctioned in any way, shape or form between members of the church. Any who do so are subject to disciplinary action. There is no indication anywhere that it's ever going to change.

It's a totally different situation than "interracial marriages", to use Canard's phrasing.

I've heard that our church called interracial marriage a sin at one time. It was on DB's newest podcast I believe. Maybe he has a reference. Or did I hear it wrong DB?

[Vance]

I've heard that our church called interracial marriage a sin at one time.

I have heard that our church is going to add another story onto the church office building, for the strict purpose of housing all of the rumors going around about what our church has done, is doing and will do.

 

Perhaps, when it is completed, you can add your rumor to it.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Vance

[Tacenda]

I have heard that our church is going to add another story onto the church office building, for the strict purpose of housing all of the rumors going around about what our church has done, is doing and will do.

Perhaps, when it is completed, you can add your rumor to it.

I guess it's very convincing that it was sinful in nature according to the below comments. (ETA: I deleted cherry picked quotes).

And what I believe DB and others on this board are getting at is that just like right now SSM is considered sinful in nature, in time this may also change.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Tacenda

[jwhitlock]

I've heard that our church called interracial marriage a sin at one time. It was on DB's newest podcast I believe. Maybe he has a reference. Or did I hear it wrong DB?

 

Rather than a bunch of drive by quotes that don't address what I posted, why not post something that actually directly addresses what I said?

 

It should be rather easy to prove that married black individuals could not be members of the church, or that "interracial marriages" (again, to use Canard's term) resulted in automatic disciplinary action, according to official church policy.

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell knows quite well that Canard was referring to black persons and some other race. It seemed pretty clear since he had been discussing priesthood and temple restrictions.

Russell just likes to play games.

Teancum knows quite well that Canard was trying to argue that there was some "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage)" and that he was ignoring Priesthood and Temple restrictions.

Teancum just likes to make stuff up.

Edited May 17, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

I guess it's very convincing that it was sinful in nature according to the below comments.  And what I believe DB and others on this board are getting at is that just like right now SSM is considered sinful in nature, in time this may also change.

 

http://mormonquotes.com/Intermarriage

 

In a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, pages 107‑108

 

We mustn't intermarry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter‑marriage with the Negro, is there?

Mark E. Petersen, "Race problems as they affect the church"

 

Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal‑minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.... there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

First Presidency, First Presidency (George Albert Smith) letter to Virgil Sponberg (critic of the priesthood ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Mormonism's Negro Doctrine, p. 42

 

 

Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, '... shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.' God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one‑sixth Negro or one‑one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders.'"

John L. Lund, The Church and the Negro, pp. 54‑55, 1967

 

Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on the earth; we will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the Bishopric, and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them and appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do so, the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction‑‑we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the Priesthood until that curse be removed.

Brigham Young, Speech by Gov. Brigham Young in Joint Session of the Legislature, giving his views on slavery, Feb. 5, 1852

 And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground ‑‑ it would also take the life of his children.

Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff's personal diary, 4:97

Thank you for that list of cherry-picked "Mormon quotes" from an anti-Mormon website.

Now, how many of those quotes have any relevance once the Priesthood ban is lifted?

Take your time.

[Teancum]

It also needs to be emphasized that this is a clear fabrication on your part. Canard, intentionally or not, phrased it as "interracial marriages" in his post, which subsequently backfired on him.

 

Rather than playing games, Russell has raised valid questions and perspectives concerning the history of marriage overall in the church that make any comparison of SSM to blacks and the temple invalid.

 

Since you seem to think it's fair game to impute motivations to Russel, I'll do you the same favor.

 

You and yours seem to recognize that the real fact in all this is that marriage involving one or both spouses being black has never been disallowed by the church. There have been faithful married couples in the church where one or both members were black, and there has never been an official injunction requiring disciplinary action against such. Those members have remained in full fellowship, with the exception of being able to go to the temple to be sealed - until 1978. It's clear that you all know that, and can't respond cogently to that, so instead you are engaging in the time-honored, and dishonest, tactic of shooting the messenger.

 

So to be clear, SSM has never, ever been sanctioned in any way, shape or form between members of the church. Any who do so are subject to disciplinary action. There is no indication anywhere that it's ever going to change.

 

It's a totally different situation than "interracial marriages", to use Canard's phrasing.

Hmmm let me see Mr. Whitlock....I am not arguing anything at all here. I just am stating that It seemed pretty clear to me what Canard meant in his posts, I think I am on record here as saying that I don't think the Church will ever change its position on SSM not one whit.

That said I thnk there Is tons of precedence for the LDS church changing all sorts of stuff. So could it happen? Oh sure. Do I think it will? Nope. Do I hope it will? Nope. I am quite fine with the LDS church taking their stance on this. Reallly I am not all that worked up about it.

I do though think the OP and what it attempts to do is pure nonesense as I find most of what Russell posts in the way he posts it. See now I am snarling agian.

[Teancum]

Teancum knows quite well that Canard was trying to argue that there was some "doctrine (banning inter-racial marriage)" and that he was ignoring Priesthood and Temple restrictions.Teancum just likes to make stuff up.

No Russell I don't. And you are being typically dishonest here.

[Teancum]

Thank you for that list of cherry-picked "Mormon quotes" from an anti-Mormon website.Now, how many of those quotes have any relevance once the Priesthood ban is lifted?Take your time.

Oh none of them have any relevance after 1978. And all those apostles and prophets who said such tripe were tossed under the bus In the recent essays as well as teaching folklore.

How terribly convenient.