No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Tacenda]

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.

The church wouldn't let those quotes be readily available on a website, so what else can I do? Just showing that the church continually evolves into what it is, that's what makes this church not stagnant. Actually, as I was cherry picking, I saw several other faiths that were anti interracial marriages back then too.

[Vance]

 

 

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.

 

<SNIPPED ALL QUOTES THAT DID NOT CALL IT A SIN>

 

Please feel free to provide any quote that ACTUALLY calls interracial marriage (of any type) a sin.  Warnings about the loss of priesthood blessings for your posterity are not the same as declarations of sinful behavior.  Just so you know.

[Tacenda]

Please feel free to provide any quote that ACTUALLY calls interracial marriage (of any type) a sin. Warnings about the loss of priesthood blessings for your posterity are not the same as declarations of sinful behavior. Just so you know.

Well I'm no lawyer but one of the definitions of sin is b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible.

[Teancum]

Please feel free to provide any quote that ACTUALLY calls interracial marriage (of any type) a sin.  Warnings about the loss of priesthood blessings for your posterity are not the same as declarations of sinful behavior.  Just so you know.

Well gee seems like a fairly heavy handed statement with severe repurcussions. Sin? Well Elder Peterson felt strongly enough about it to give a dire warning. I doubt at least he as an Aposlte approved of it.....

Just so you know....

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Typical of whom, exactly?

You were the one who snarked that I was being "intentionally obtuse." Either you were too lazy to follow the discussion, or too "obtuse" to figure out what was going on.

In any event, you decided to take a gratuitous poke at me, which added precisely nothing of value to the conversation.

Do try to contribute something of substance. Otherwise, please find another thread to derail.

[ERayR]

The church wouldn't let those quotes be readily available on a website, so what else can I do? Just showing that the church continually evolves into what it is, that's what makes this church not stagnant. Actually, as I was cherry picking, I saw several other faiths that were anti interracial marriages back then too.

 

A lot of wise people LDS and non-LDS did and still do council against interracial marriage.  A lot of them also council against marrying outside ones social status.  The reason is that such marriages add the stresses of learning and adapting to cultural and social customs to the stresses and adaptations of marriage in general. 

Edited May 18, 2015 by ERayR

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Canard's phrase "interracial marriage" doesn't really lend itself to the kind of filtering that is "clear" to you. It pretty much means exactly what it says - marriage between two races, without qualification as to which race is being talked about.

 

Of course, as I posted, Canard made a bit of a mistake in phrasing it that way. It opened the door for a historical analysis of what marriages the church has actually disallowed, resulting in official disciplinary action.

 

And surprise! Only SSM fits the bill. Nothing else. At all.

 

So basing a justification of SSM on interracial marriage doesn't really work. It would require a redefinition of what "sin" really is, and that would be a bit of a problem.

 

Of course, I appreciate the anti-Mormon postings of the opinions of certain leaders based on their own cultural biases, of what might be considered sinful. However, the problem with those opinions is that they were hardly universal, and could hardly be considered official church policy that would result in disciplinary action. I am not aware, despite those quotes, that any interracial married couple or black couple in the church ever faced official disciplinary action that resulted in their excommunication based solely on the fact that they were married.

 

That makes it difficult to claim that SSM has any relationship to any official church actions against interracial marriage - because there just aren't any.

 

So, we're breaking new ground with SSM, in reality. It involves redefining consistent, foundational gospel principles of family, family relationships, and the nature of sin.

 

And do you really think that anyone who wants such foundational change in the church is being faithful to either the letter or the spirit of the restored gospel?  I think not.

 

Which was what, I believe, think the OP was all about.

[jwhitlock]

A lot of wise people LDS and non-LDS did and still do council against interracial marriage.  A lot of them also council against marrying outside ones social status.  The reason is that such marriages add the stresses of learning and adapting to cultural and social customs to the stresses and adaptations of marriage in general. 

 

It very much depends on individual circumstances, such as where one lives, the background of both the individuals involved, family histories, etc.

 

The overriding consideration is the level of compatibility that both individuals have based on those criteria. Because there was significant racial separation and disparity in the past, it made it difficult for interracial couples to succeed. Today, many of those barriers have been removed, and there can be a great deal of compatibility between individuals of different races - which has resulted in more of those marriages happening, and remaining successful.

[jwhitlock]

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

 

More irony!

[jwhitlock]

Well gee seems like a fairly heavy handed statement with severe repurcussions. Sin? Well Elder Peterson felt strongly enough about it to give a dire warning. I doubt at least he as an Aposlte approved of it.....

Just so you know....

 

Well, now we're getting somewhere. At the time of Elder Peterson's statement, I'm sure that there were interracial, married couples who were members in the church in good standing. We must have record somewhere that they were disciplined and told to get divorced, or be excommunicated. After all, Elder Peterson's statement reflected official church policy, didn't it? And surely, after such a statement, there would have been a visible purge in the church of such individuals!

 

It should be an easy thing for enemies of the church to document such things, shouldn't it. Strange that I've never seen any of that.

 

Of course, if there weren't any such incidents, then maybe it was just an apostle giving his opinion based on his cultural background and understanding at the time - and it can't be considered "official" church doctrine.

 

The other funny thing is, I see plenty of critics and enemies of the church throwing past leaders of the church under the bus by collecting and posting such statements, so that people like Tacenda can copy and past them. I just don't see faithful members of the church doing that same thing in order to justify their current positions in support of the world.

[ERayR]

It very much depends on individual circumstances, such as where one lives, the background of both the individuals involved, family histories, etc.

 

The overriding consideration is the level of compatibility that both individuals have based on those criteria. Because there was significant racial separation and disparity in the past, it made it difficult for interracial couples to succeed. Today, many of those barriers have been removed, and there can be a great deal of compatibility between individuals of different races - which has resulted in more of those marriages happening, and remaining successful.

 

Perhaps I should have said different nationalities.  To some extent what you say is true but not entirely.  My family has experienced international marriages since WWII down to now. 

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps I should have said different nationalities.  To some extent what you say is true but not entirely.  My family has experienced international marriages since WWII down to now. 

 

So has our family. My brother is married to a very sweet sister from the Philippines who we dearly love and who is a wonderful person. My nephew is married to an African-American sister who is an absolute gem and is the best thing that ever happened to him.

 

You're correct in that international marriages have been going on longer, and more successfully than black/white marriages in this country. Many of the cultural incompatibilities that affected those black/white marriages have been coming down in recent decades. However, the cultural barriers were certainly there and in force prior to the 1960's.

 

Give that the membership of the church often is a reflection of the demographics and cultural influences of the area where it exists, I do not find it surprising that such cultural influences were reflected at times within both the membership and leadership of the church. Most of the linked anti-Mormon quotes would not have raised an eyebrow at the time they were given. They were the cultural norm. That doesn't excuse them, but it does cause me to reflect on the cultural biases that I hold, and whether they are valid or not.

 

However, when we consider SSM, the choice for faithful church members is pretty clear. There hasn't been any valid historical evidence presented that would justify a belief that the church could someday allow SSM between church members.

[Teancum]

Canard's phrase "interracial marriage" doesn't really lend itself to the kind of filtering that is "clear" to you. It pretty much means exactly what it says - marriage between two races, without qualification as to which race is being talked about.

 

Of course, as I posted, Canard made a bit of a mistake in phrasing it that way. It opened the door for a historical analysis of what marriages the church has actually disallowed, resulting in official disciplinary action.

 

And surprise! Only SSM fits the bill. Nothing else. At all.

 

So basing a justification of SSM on interracial marriage doesn't really work. It would require a redefinition of what "sin" really is, and that would be a bit of a problem.

 

Of course, I appreciate the anti-Mormon postings of the opinions of certain leaders based on their own cultural biases, of what might be considered sinful. However, the problem with those opinions is that they were hardly universal, and could hardly be considered official church policy that would result in disciplinary action. I am not aware, despite those quotes, that any interracial married couple or black couple in the church ever faced official disciplinary action that resulted in their excommunication based solely on the fact that they were married.

 

That makes it difficult to claim that SSM has any relationship to any official church actions against interracial marriage - because there just aren't any.

 

So, we're breaking new ground with SSM, in reality. It involves redefining consistent, foundational gospel principles of family, family relationships, and the nature of sin.

 

And do you really think that anyone who wants such foundational change in the church is being faithful to either the letter or the spirit of the restored gospel?  I think not.

 

Which was what, I believe, think the OP was all about.

Well I still disagree. Canard's point given the context was certainly clear. But he can argue his point further if he wishes.

As for your comments about leaders opinions and cultural biases....well again....certianly a convenient back peddle. Typical apologetics but perhaps a topic for another thread on another day.

Whether there were ever DCs for a black person marrying a white person in church history I have no idea. We do however know what Brigham Young thought of such relationships.

So terrific, we know your opinion. You and clearly Russell think that someone who is in all apparent ways a faithful temple recomend holder who may hope God in his wisdom someday tells the LDS leaders SSM is a ok makes them unfaithful and at least for Russell, apostate. At least he has said that to Rockpond on this thread.

Well that may or may not be. Temple recommend holdes hold all sort of views. One poster here believes BY's odd Adam God doctrine. But I do no think when he is asked the first TR question he tells his bishop he personally beleives Adam is God. Is he as much an apostate as someone who hopes someday SSM will be accepted by the LDS church?

Last of all I will say it seems pretty clear to me anyone who hopes the LDS Church will ever accept SSM is hoping in vain. It is just too outside the fundamental doctrine.

[Teancum]

Typical of whom, exactly?You were the one who snarked that I was being "intentionally obtuse." Either you were too lazy to follow the discussion, or too "obtuse" to figure out what was going on.In any event, you decided to take a gratuitous poke at me, which added precisely nothing of value to the conversation.Do try to contribute something of substance. Otherwise, please find another thread to derail.

I have followed the entire fascinating thread. It is full of incredibly reveling things about all who are posting on it.

I still think the post I made was a fair and accurate observation and thus added to the thread. but hey Canard can take it from here if he wishes as it was his posts.

Have a lovely day.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

More irony!

Feel free to point out any dishonesty you think I am posting on this thread.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Well, now we're getting somewhere. At the time of Elder Peterson's statement, I'm sure that there were interracial, married couples who were members in the church in good standing. We must have record somewhere that they were disciplined and told to get divorced, or be excommunicated. After all, Elder Peterson's statement reflected official church policy, didn't it? And surely, after such a statement, there would have been a visible purge in the church of such individuals!

 

It should be an easy thing for enemies of the church to document such things, shouldn't it. Strange that I've never seen any of that.

 

Of course, if there weren't any such incidents, then maybe it was just an apostle giving his opinion based on his cultural background and understanding at the time - and it can't be considered "official" church doctrine.

 

The other funny thing is, I see plenty of critics and enemies of the church throwing past leaders of the church under the bus by collecting and posting such statements, so that people like Tacenda can copy and past them. I just don't see faithful members of the church doing that same thing in order to justify their current positions in support of the world.

Sigh... Once again I never made this argument so stop trying to pin it on me.

As for critics and enemies quoting past leaders....well own it. Why is it every thing that is odd, strange, uncomfortable that the LDS defender wants to get out of is somehow out of bounds as opinion and unofficial? Who really is throwing who under the bus? These men said things as persons of high standing. We are told follow the brethren. Don't you think beleiving LDS member those who lived when such things were said of tern beleiveed them as more than simply opinions based on culture?

[Tacenda]

Canard's phrase "interracial marriage" doesn't really lend itself to the kind of filtering that is "clear" to you. It pretty much means exactly what it says - marriage between two races, without qualification as to which race is being talked about.

 

Of course, as I posted, Canard made a bit of a mistake in phrasing it that way. It opened the door for a historical analysis of what marriages the church has actually disallowed, resulting in official disciplinary action.

 

And surprise! Only SSM fits the bill. Nothing else. At all.

 

So basing a justification of SSM on interracial marriage doesn't really work. It would require a redefinition of what "sin" really is, and that would be a bit of a problem.

 

Of course, I appreciate the anti-Mormon postings of the opinions of certain leaders based on their own cultural biases, of what might be considered sinful. However, the problem with those opinions is that they were hardly universal, and could hardly be considered official church policy that would result in disciplinary action. I am not aware, despite those quotes, that any interracial married couple or black couple in the church ever faced official disciplinary action that resulted in their excommunication based solely on the fact that they were married.

 

That makes it difficult to claim that SSM has any relationship to any official church actions against interracial marriage - because there just aren't any.

 

So, we're breaking new ground with SSM, in reality. It involves redefining consistent, foundational gospel principles of family, family relationships, and the nature of sin.

 

And do you really think that anyone who wants such foundational change in the church is being faithful to either the letter or the spirit of the restored gospel?  I think not.

 

Which was what, I believe, think the OP was all about.

You forgot one, the church disallowed polygamist marriages. And in my opinion, these have been shown to be detrimental in the raising of children in those marriages. Now with SSM on the table, the church has advocated that a marriage have one male and one female as parents, emphasis "one", not one male and several females. Wherein, the one male was rarely around.

[jwhitlock]

Well I still disagree. Canard's point given the context was certainly clear. But he can argue his point further if he wishes.

As for your comments about leaders opinions and cultural biases....well again....certianly a convenient back peddle. Typical apologetics but perhaps a topic for another thread on another day.

Whether there were ever DCs for a black person marrying a white person in church history I have no idea. We do however know what Brigham Young thought of such relationships.

So terrific, we know your opinion. You and clearly Russell think that someone who is in all apparent ways a faithful temple recomend holder who may hope God in his wisdom someday tells the LDS leaders SSM is a ok makes them unfaithful and at least for Russell, apostate. At least he has said that to Rockpond on this thread.

Well that may or may not be. Temple recommend holdes hold all sort of views. One poster here believes BY's odd Adam God doctrine. But I do no think when he is asked the first TR question he tells his bishop he personally beleives Adam is God. Is he as much an apostate as someone who hopes someday SSM will be accepted by the LDS church?

Last of all I will say it seems pretty clear to me anyone who hopes the LDS Church will ever accept SSM is hoping in vain. It is just too outside the fundamental doctrine.

 

No back peddling at all. Those of us who at least attempt to understand church history in the context of its time often come to very different conclusions than those who simply seek to use it to denigrate the church.

[jwhitlock]

Feel free to point out any dishonesty you think I am posting on this thread.

 

Your characterizations of Russell. Hence the irony.

[Tacenda]

No back peddling at all. Those of us who at least attempt to understand church history in the context of its time often come to very different conclusions than those who simply seek to use it to denigrate the church.

I wasn't trying to denigrate the church by using the quotes, just trying to do what I think Canard may have been doing, showing the church evolution, and for the better! Who's to say that one day, the Lord/God won't remove the curse of SSM advocacy.

[ERayR]

You forgot one, the church disallowed polygamist marriages. And in my opinion, these have been shown to be detrimental in the raising of children in those marriages. Now with SSM on the table, the church has advocated that a marriage have one male and one female as parents, emphasis "one", not one male and several females. Wherein, the one male was rarely around.

 

Your opinion has been quite blind on this issue.  There have been several General Authorities who were products of that terrible child rearing environment.

[jwhitlock]

Sigh... Once again I never made this argument so stop trying to pin it on me.

As for critics and enemies quoting past leaders....well own it. Why is it every thing that is odd, strange, uncomfortable that the LDS defender wants to get out of is somehow out of bounds as opinion and unofficial? Who really is throwing who under the bus? These men said things as persons of high standing. We are told follow the brethren. Don't you think beleiving LDS member those who lived when such things were said of tern beleiveed them as more than simply opinions based on culture?

 

Of course some people took them at face value. But not all members of the church did so. Perhaps it was because those opinions - and they were just opinions - did not quite fit with how the church really operated.

 

Critics and enemies of the church want us to take their quotes at face value. When we talk about putting them into context of the times they were given, and into the background and experiences of the people who said them, we are accused of somehow "wanting to get out of them". Actually, those of us who understand that the church ultimately is exactly what it claims to be - THE Church of Jesus Christ - seek more to understand where they were coming from. Sometimes we have enough information to come to credible decisions about why they said what they did, and other times we don't.

 

But that, of course, doesn't affect the ultimate truth claims of the church.

 

Since I'm really a good guy, I'll tell you how I perceive our prophets and leaders of the church. They're typically good individuals who have callings of responsibility as leaders, but who also ultimately have their own agency and have to work through this mortal probation using that agency the same as we all do.

 

And that means they do make mistakes at times, and say things that, while acceptable at the time, turn out to be wrong.

 

Yet the evidence is clear that the Lord continues to guide His church and to own it. Faithful members of the church try to understand why that happens, and to reconcile it where possible.

 

Others seek to use the mistakes of leaders to justify themselves and their own beliefs.

 

There's plenty of fodder out there for enemies of the church to use against us, because the church is - gasp! - composed of people. And where people are involved, they're going to mess things up.  The Lord knows that and works with it. If He jettisoned His church and its leaders every time they botched it, we'd have an annual "restoration" event.

 

Fortunately, the experiences of prophets and leaders in the Old and New Testaments give us plenty of information about prophets and how the Lord works with them.

 

Think Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy? What if he had slaughtered 500 ministers, like Elijah did with the priests of Baal.

 

Think Joseph Smith was bloodthirsty in defending himself at Carthage? What if he had ordered the Nauvoo militia to burn Carthage and kill absolutely everyone in it, like Samuel ordered Saul to do with the Amalekites.

 

Think that some leaders of the church have had cultural beliefs about race superiority that were wrong? What did the Savior do with Peter in order to change his cultural prejudices against Gentiles?

 

So no, we don't thrown them under the bus. Enemies of the church do that when they compile lists of such quotes for the sole purpose of justifying their own agendas against what the Lord has clearly and consistently commanded through His leaders.

 

Things are not nearly as simple as you'd like them to be. Cherry picked quotes don't tell the whole story at all.

[jwhitlock]

I wasn't trying to denigrate the church by using the quotes, just trying to do what I think Canard may have been doing, showing the church evolution, and for the better! Who's to say that one day, the Lord/God won't remove the curse of SSM advocacy.

 

Methinks that quite a bit of what has been posted on this thread is being ignored by you.  In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

[Tacenda]

Of course some people took them at face value. But not all members of the church did so. Perhaps it was because those opinions - and they were just opinions - did not quite fit with how the church really operated.

 

Critics and enemies of the church want us to take their quotes at face value. When we talk about putting them into context of the times they were given, and into the background and experiences of the people who said them, we are accused of somehow "wanting to get out of them". Actually, those of us who understand that the church ultimately is exactly what it claims to be - THE Church of Jesus Christ - seek more to understand where they were coming from. Sometimes we have enough information to come to credible decisions about why they said what they did, and other times we don't.

 

But that, of course, doesn't affect the ultimate truth claims of the church.

 

Since I'm really a good guy, I'll tell you how I perceive our prophets and leaders of the church. They're typically good individuals who have callings of responsibility as leaders, but who also ultimately have their own agency and have to work through this mortal probation using that agency the same as we all do.

 

And that means they do make mistakes at times, and say things that, while acceptable at the time, turn out to be wrong.

 

Yet the evidence is clear that the Lord continues to guide His church and to own it. Faithful members of the church try to understand why that happens, and to reconcile it where possible.

 

Others seek to use the mistakes of leaders to justify themselves and their own beliefs.

 

There's plenty of fodder out there for enemies of the church to use against us, because the church is - gasp! - composed of people. And where people are involved, they're going to mess things up.  The Lord knows that and works with it. If He jettisoned His church and its leaders every time they botched it, we'd have an annual "restoration" event.

 

Fortunately, the experiences of prophets and leaders in the Old and New Testaments give us plenty of information about prophets and how the Lord works with them.

 

Think Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy? What if he had slaughtered 500 ministers, like Elijah did with the priests of Baal.

 

Think Joseph Smith was bloodthirsty in defending himself at Carthage? What if he had ordered the Nauvoo militia to burn Carthage and kill absolutely everyone in it, like Samuel ordered Saul to do with the Amalekites.

 

Think that some leaders of the church have had cultural beliefs about race superiority that were wrong? What did the Savior do with Peter in order to change his cultural prejudices against Gentiles?

 

So no, we don't thrown them under the bus. Enemies of the church do that when they compile lists of such quotes for the sole purpose of justifying their own agendas against what the Lord has clearly and consistently commanded through His leaders.

 

Things are not nearly as simple as you'd like them to be. Cherry picked quotes don't tell the whole story at all.

You've convinced me! Grateful that the church is not known for the atrocities of other faiths! I found a new podcast, it's called "Mormon History Guy", he interviewed Robert Millet, I believe in 2014. Robert mentioned how the church has only recently or in the last 30 years, emphasized Grace, where before it was more works based. I do think our church will continually get better, and more often than not, it's from the bottom up.

I really hope I can overlook the past, and hopefully the church won't crack down and become more fundamental over these controversies. I hope this church continues to get God given revelation, whenever it's time.

[Teancum]

Your characterizations of Russell. Hence the irony.

I guess more than beauty is in the eye of the beholder.