No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

Okay Teancum, just a quick recap.

First, here is what your buddy wrote:

 

Until 1978, mixed race couples were unable to have a temple marriage, even a white man and black woman.

Did you bother to read that, Teancum?

Then here is what I wrote, in direct response to the above:

 

Really? Are those the only two races there are?

Are you saying that if a black man and a black woman -- a monoracial couple -- wanted to get married in the Temple before June 1978, it would have been on?

Or was there some other factor in play?

But what about a white man who wanted to marry a Polynesian woman? A Polynesian man and an Asian woman? An Asian man and a Native American woman? A Native American man and a white woman? Where was the "ban" on those "racially mixed" marriages, pre 1978?

So who was being "obtuse" when you accused me of dishonesty, Teancum?

 

The post you thought was "a fair and accurate observation" was actually vacuous and gratuitous.

And "incredibly reveling" (or perhaps revealing) about the one who posted it.

 

Have a lovely day.

You too!

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

But will you accept such revelation, if it doesn't go the way you expect it to?

Because, make no mistake: God is not going to reveal that "same sex marriage" or anything like it has suddenly and inexplicably become "acceptable." That is an apostate notion, and is false.

The Gospel isn't all about teaching smooth things that make people feel comfortable. Just so you know.

[Tacenda]

But will you accept such revelation, if it doesn't go the way you expect it to?Because, make no mistake: God is not going to reveal that "same sex marriage" or anything like it has suddenly and inexplicably become "acceptable." That is an apostate notion, and is false.The Gospel isn't all about teaching smooth things that make people feel comfortable. Just so you know.

I know.

[Calm]

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.

Showing only a small portion of quotes on racial beliefs is not showing evolution....more like a record being stuck in a groove playing the same tune over and over.

When are you going to be posting the positive comments?

Edited May 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[sunstoned]

But will you accept such revelation, if it doesn't go the way you expect it to?

Because, make no mistake: God is not going to reveal that "same sex marriage" or anything like it has suddenly and inexplicably become "acceptable." That is an apostate notion, and is false.

The Gospel isn't all about teaching smooth things that make people feel comfortable. Just so you know.

Never say never dude.  BY said never, and lo and behold, polygamy was reversed. 

[canard78]

Yes, I thought so.

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

What nonsense. You're really grasping at straws now aren't you?

When it comes to putting words in people's mouths that is a candidate for attempt of the year. I am acutely aware of 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. 

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

What's interesting is that you keep focusing on the minutiae of the debate. You seem to think that by showing that I used the phrase "inter racial marriage" too broadly you've somehow defended the prophets' position on mixed race (and by that I'm referring to blacks and whites, as I always have been) over the years.

If it makes you feel better, keep on focusing on the words ("inter-racial marriage" or "ban"). If it makes you feel like you're defending the actual underlying principle keep it up. You do so while avoid the central issue.

My key point has always been that teachings about a marriage between blacks and whites have clearly changed over time. Prophets have taught things about it as a point of doctrine that they do not teach today.

Simple question:

Is the following 1947 statement of doctrine by the Prophet and the First Presidency still taught today?

Furthermore, 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 till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous...

We are not unmindful of the fact that 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 (1947, George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, David O. McKay

Is the above a current church teaching? Or has the doctrine and position of the church leadership on this type of marriage changed?

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem was all yours, and your inability and unwillingness to accept that my usage was proper.

 

And as I recall it is one of the several thread wherein you bullied me to no end, with what could only have been deliberate action on your part to derail a discussion.

 

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

You mean the one summarily shut down by the moderators before there were any responses?

And to beg the question does not mean to raise the question or to prompt the question or to bring up the question. That application arose from repeated misuse by people who never understood the real meaning of the phrase in the first place. Whatever might be said of it, your usage was not "proper".

Edited to add: You don't have my permission to carry my name in your signature line. Kindly remove it in accordance with board guidelines.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Apparently, fallacies, like narcotics, can be insidiously addictive. And one can be in denial about such an addiction.

Hmm, might there be a 12-step program for such a thing?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Not "discussing the doctrines of salvation" per se. But faultfinding leveled at the Church, its leaders, doctrines, principles, beliefs, practices, history and administration appears to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Never say never dude.  BY said never, and lo and behold, polygamy was reversed.

See the quotes from the apostles in my sig line below.

[sunstoned]

See the quotes from the apostles in my sig line below.

When outside pressure gets to the point that a new revelation comes, just like it did with polygamy and just like it did with the priesthood race restrictions, it won't matter what Russell Nelson said or didn't say.  Because just like Bruce McConkie, it will be said that he was speaking with a "limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

[Scott Lloyd]

When outside pressure gets to the point that a new revelation comes, just like it did with polygamy and just like it did with the priesthood race restrictions, it won't matter what Russell Nelson said or didn't say.  Because just like Bruce McConkie, it will be said that he was speaking with a "limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

You are assuming "outside pressure" brought about the 1978 revelation; I don't concede that as fact and I submit you can't prove your assumption -- unless by "outside pressure" you mean the practical problems presented by continuing the pre-1978 practice in areas of Church growth with large numbers of members who have African ancestry and with a scarcity of priesthood leadership. But that would not be "outside pressure." It would be internal growing pains.

Furthermore, it was always foregone that the priesthood restriction would be lifted. As for the notion that homosexual sin may one day be accepted, well, statements such as those I've quoted make clear that those who think so are fantasizing.

 

Edited to add:

 

And as for your comparison to polygamy, heaven help our free and democratic republic if we ever descend into the pit of despotism to the point that religious groups are compelled by governmental edict to accept practices that conflict with the very fabric of their being as would be the case if the Church of Jesus Christ were forced to begin accepting or performing gay "marriage."

 

At that point it will be time for another 1776 style revolution.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

Okay Teancum, just a quick recap.

First, here is what your buddy wrote:

 

Did you bother to read that, Teancum?

Then here is what I wrote, in direct response to the above:

 

So who was being "obtuse" when you accused me of dishonesty, Teancum?

 

The post you thought was "a fair and accurate observation" was actually vacuous and gratuitous.

And "incredibly reveling" (or perhaps revealing) about the one who posted it.

 

You too!

As we now see Canard has stated that his statement "interracial marriages" was referring the a black and white person.

So yes I still think it was a fairly clear what he meant, I think you were being intentionally obtuse and I thnk your carrying on about not understanding what he meant is dishonest.

Feel free to have one or two more stabs at me on this one if you wish. This is just be becoming redundant and distasteful.

[Gray]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

I didn't get the impression from reading the chapter that Corianton was experiencing any lasting happiness from his experience with prostitution. One of our principle teachings we that good choices bring lasting happiness in this life. 

[Gray]

God thinks it's icky. What is your definition of immoral? That covers a wide range depending on who sets the standard. I can guaranty you there will be no smoking in the Celestial Kingdom, nor homosexual acts, nor anything unclean. 

Straight Latter-day Saints that don't repent will be held accountable for their sins sexual too (mine too). Do we need to be commanded in all things? 

 

How certain are you that there will be any sexual acts at all in the celestial kingdom?

[Gray]

A truly amazing statement. I have no clue what that means.

 

Actually, I don't understand it either. I was feeling mentally foggy on Friday. That reads as word salad to me today. 

[Gray]

The advantage is that you can reach people you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach

The disadvantage is that you still end up with junk data

 

As I was telling a colleague the other day: "no data is better than junk data."

 

Are the questions junk questions? I haven't seen them. 

[ERayR]

As we now see Canard has stated that his statement "interracial marriages" was referring the a black and white person.

So yes I still think it was a fairly clear what he meant, I think you were being intentionally obtuse and I thnk your carrying on about not understanding what he meant is dishonest.

Feel free to have one or two more stabs at me on this one if you wish. This is just be becoming redundant and distasteful.

 

Here is what Canard wrote:  "Until 1978, mixed race couples were unable to have a temple marriage, even a white man and black woman."  His wording seems to be all inclusive.  He even points out a special case of mixed race couples.  Face it in striving for effect he overreached .

[ERayR]

I didn't get the impression from reading the chapter that Corianton was experiencing any lasting happiness from his experience with prostitution. One of our principle teachings we that good choices bring lasting happiness in this life. 

 

It does but sometimes we do not recognize it until much later.

[ERayR]

How certain are you that there will be any sexual acts at all in the celestial kingdom?

 

The mortal creation of sex differences is an indication that it is eternal.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ERayR

[Gray]

It does but sometimes we do not recognize it until much later.

 

Maybe at the end of my life I'll recognize that I only thought my family brought me true happiness, but it was really an extended, 50 year counterfeit of happiness. Maybe I'll come to the conclusion that a life of loneliness and suffering would have been better. But I doubt it. I doubt any of these good gay families will come to that conclusion either. 

Edited May 18, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

The mortal creation of sex differences is an indication that it is eternal.

 

Will we also have an immune system in the afterlife? What will it be defending us against? 

[ERayR]

Maybe at the end of my life I'll recognize that I only though my family brought me true happiness, but it was really an extended, 50 year counterfeit of happiness. Maybe I'll come to the conclusion that a life of loneliness and suffering would have been better. But I doubt it. I doubt any of these good gay families will come to that conclusion either. 

 

In the end that choice is yours.

[ERayR]

Will we also have an immune system in the afterlife? What will it be defending us against? 

 

Snide critics?

[jwhitlock]

As we now see Canard has stated that his statement "interracial marriages" was referring the a black and white person.

So yes I still think it was a fairly clear what he meant, I think you were being intentionally obtuse and I thnk your carrying on about not understanding what he meant is dishonest.

Feel free to have one or two more stabs at me on this one if you wish. This is just be becoming redundant and distasteful.

 

And the irony continues full throttle...