No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[CCRW]

Ah vote up, it will help towards a kinder/gentler happy New Zealander

[Brian 2.0]

So I take it that Russell has admitted defeat on the OP since there has been no rebuttal to it since cinepro's 10 upvoted post?

 

Hopefully he's just busy and comes back and comments more since there have been a number of challenges to his OP and his only responses have been to little side notes and tangents.

 

Regarding Russell's original-original-point that there are zero faithful members that believe same-sex temple marriage is even doctrinally possible.

 

Is that because...

 

1)  There aren't any that you know of (anecdotal evidence)

2)  There aren't any reported cases by means of some study (provide source if you you have one, please)

 

or

 

3)  There aren't any because it's a contradictory statement (i.e. belief that same-sex temple marriage is even doctrinally possible automatically makes you an unfaithful member)

 

Please clarify.  Thanks.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3)  There aren't any because it's a contradictory statement (i.e. belief that same-sex temple marriage is even doctrinally possible automatically makes you an unfaithful member)

 

Please clarify.  Thanks.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that Russell thinks that the term 'faithful latter-day saint' inherently excludes any who support gay marriage. His OP is a defense of this argument. The problem is that to support this Russell creates a definition for the word faithful (not found in any dictionary or doctrinal statements by the Brethren) that is specifically tailored to exclude those who support same sex marriage:

 

 

<snip>

Such a person would strenuously, even passionately, resist any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord; recognising such practices to be a desecration of the holy place.

 

Such a person does not need to explain away, or qualify, those joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which declare binding, official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ. Nor is such a person arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment" on settled matters of doctrine. Such a person knows that an attitude like that is entirely incompatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint, being that it is entirely apostate.

<emphasis mine>

 

Aside from the fact that Russell just made up his definition on the spot, the problem is that he begs the question in the first paragraph quoted. Of course no faithful latter-day saint would want profane practices occurring in the temple. This of course assumes that same sex marriages are profane. Since we are talking about people who support same sex marriages if approved by revelation through prophet, obviously they do not think such practices are profane.

 

What is more, he calls people we would welcome revelation affirming same sex marriage as "arrogantly condescending" and "entirely apostate." Not misguided, not on the path to apostacy, but "entirely apostate." 

Edited April 30, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

Do you think West Point was as important to Revolutionary War America as the Temple is to believing Latter-day Saints?

 

Yes. It was the main strategic entry point for British warships to the Hudson Valley. The Temple is the strategic entry point to LDS worship. Without the Temple much of LDS worship losses meaning. We become just another Protestant sect.

Edited April 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

Yes. It was the main strategic entry point for British warships to the Hudson Valley. The Temple is the strategic entry point to LDS worship. Without the Temple much of LDS worship losses meaning. We become just another Protestant sect.

 

So the Church was "just another Protestant sect" until 1842?

[Brian 2.0]

...the problem is that he begs the question in the first paragraph quoted. Of course no faithful latter-day saint would want profane practices occurring in the temple. This of course assumes that same sex marriages are profane. Since we are talking about people who support same sex marriages if approved by revelation through prophet, obviously they do not think such practices are profane. 

 

Oh great.  Now we're going to get a "Begging the Question and Profane Practices" thread.  

[thesometimesaint]

So the Church was "just another Protestant sect" until 1842?

 

Not what I said. IMNTBHO we would have become just another Protestant sect if we remained without the Temple.

[Russell C McGregor]

The point of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" is that the arguer takes an objective description ("Scotsman") and modifies it with a specifier into a new definition that he just made up or is unique to the arguer ("true Scotsman").

 

The test is to see whether RCM is doing the same.

 

First, we start out with the descriptor "Mormon".

 

 

 

 

So we must ask ourselves if there is some objective definition of "Mormon" that can be applied apart from RCM's feelings on the subject.  I certainly think so. 

 

In the context of this discussion board and as defined by the CoJCoLdS, a "Mormon" is anyone who has been baptized into the CoJCoLdS and is currently on the records (hasn't left through death, resignation or ex'd).  The Church has the names of all the members, and counts them.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-stats

 

According the Church itself, there are currently 15,372,337 members or "Mormons".  So if you're on that list, you can objectively be considered a "Mormon".

 

Second, we must look at the modified definitions that are being put forth by RCM, and figure out whether these also have an objective definition, or if they're something he's making up and defining himself.

 

The first modified definition is "believing Latter-day Saint", followed by "faithful Latter-day Saint" (for the purposes of these definitions, I'm assuming RCM is using "Latter-day Saint" synonymously with "Mormon"):

 

 

 

 

 

So what are the objective definitions for "believing Latter-day Saint" and "faithful Latter-day Saint"?   Here is how it is described by Church leaders in official Church publications.  The first two are from President Eyring, and relate to "optimism":

 

 

Now let's look at the definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint":

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third reference I found is from President Packer, and it's a little longer but very interesting:

 

 

 

So apparently to be a "believing Latter-day Saint" is to be an optimist that believes that homosexuality isn't a "permanent condition".  An interesting definition to be sure, but not exactly what RCM had imagined.

 

I couldn't find any references that support RCM's other qualifiers, so I can only assume he has made these up. 

 

Now let's look at "faithful Latter-day Saint":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most direct definition would seem to be this one:

 

 

 

So the Church's definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" would appear to be an unpopular polygamous girl who helps other men keep their Priesthood commitments and has a Temple recommend.  Again, not exactly what RCM came up with.

 

In the end, it does appear that RCM has taken an objective "class" and added his own creative (and exclusionary) modifiers that have no objective reference in an attempt to limit the members of that "class", which is pretty much the definition of the "no True Scotsman fallacy".

Ah, Cinepro.

The king of glib strikes again.

So the Church's definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint" would appear to be an unpopular polygamous girl who helps other men keep their Priesthood commitments and has a Temple recommend. Again, not exactly what RCM came up with.

No, that's not a definition.

Examples are not a definition.

Comparing your examples to the OP, can you show how the OP negates or invalidates any of the examples you provided?

No?

Okay then, let's cut to the chase: how many of the points I raised in the OP are not compatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint?

For instance, do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who is not loyal to the Church and its mission in the world?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who does not sustain -- meaning, actively uphold -- the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators? Or who sees those terms merely as institutional titles, and not as describing their actual roles as those whom the True and Living God has chosen to represent Him on the earth?

or that they might be God's servants in some sense or other, just like a bunch of other nice guys, like the Dalai Lama or Al Sharpton?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who does not uphold the values and moral standards of the Church of Jesus Christ? Or who's willing to uphold them only whey they are in full agreement with current social fashions?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint sees the Church of Jesus Christ as nothing more than a friendly social club, having no special covenant relationship with God?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint would welcome any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord, or reject the suggestion that such practices would be a desecration of the holy place?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint sees a need to explain away, or qualify, those joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which declare binding, official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ? Or do you suppose that such a person would be arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment" on settled matters of doctrine?

Or do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint would regard attitudes like that as apostate?

What's your view, Mr Cinepro?

[Sanpitch]

You  haven't changed a bit Russell from your days back on LDSTalk about fifteen years ago.  Do I have the right person.?

[Brian 2.0]

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint would welcome any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord, or reject the suggestion that such practices would be a desecration of the holy place?

 

No.  

 

But... as has been pointed out... would a same-sex sealing in the temple be a "profane practice" if it was preceeded by a prophetic revelation allowing homosexual temple sealings to occur?

 

You know very well the word games you are playing here.

[cinepro]

You  haven't changed a bit Russell from your days back on LDSTalk about fifteen years ago.  Do I have the right person.?

 

If he hasn't changed a bit, then probably.

[Brian 2.0]

If he hasn't changed a bit, then probably.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No.  

 

But... as has been pointed out... would a same-sex sealing in the temple be a "profane practice" if it was preceeded by a prophetic revelation allowing homosexual temple sealings to occur?

 

You know very well the word games you are playing here.

The prophets have left very little wiggle room that such a revelation will happen. In GC talks they talked about how certain things will remain unchanged, because of their eternal nature, even when the world celebrates and accepts and makes legal certain practices.

 

It is one thing to hold out the possibility that such a revelation could happen. Even I admit that it is possible. What I disagree with is statements that "in the future, 40 years from now, there will be gay marriage in the temple".  That to me does not represent a faithful LDS point of view.

[Brian 2.0]

The prophets have left very little wiggle room that such a revelation will happen. In GC talks they talked about how certain things will remain unchanged, because of their eternal nature, even when the world celebrates and accepts and makes legal certain practices.

 

It is one thing to hold out the possibility that such a revelation could happen. Even I admit that it is possible.

 

Woah!  I always took you for a faithful member.  Nice to hear your are with the rest of us "unfaithful" lot.  

 

Maybe your admission will prompt Russel to retract or amend his statement that started this all.

 

What I disagree with is statements that "in the future, 40 years from now, there will be gay marriage in the temple".  That to me does not represent a faithful LDS point of view.

I say that's highly unlikely as well.  A much more likely scenario is they don't allow it and in 40 years the number of members and converts has declined and continues to dwindle because the church seems "behind the times."  

Edited April 30, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Teancum]

I think it highly unlikely the Church will ever accept same sex marriage and allow it in the temple. It is just to antithesis to the fundamental teachings of the church.

Others have noted here the church currently has a position and stated this will not happen. Of course 19th century leaders said similar things about polygamy so I guess it could change. Not likely though.

So score one on the faithful side for me! Course I am sure Russell could find plenty of other flaws in me that would disqualify me from the faithful category.

On the other hand didn't Elder Christofferson just say support of same sex marriage at least in a secular nature did not disqualify a member as faithful?

Anyway what and fun and insightful thread.

[Brian 2.0]

The real answer of it's doctrinally possible is "yes", in the way that ANYTHING is doctrinally possible with modern revelation that can trump previous official doctrines because now we have further light and knowledge, etc, etc.

 

With that said, it would take a LOT of further light and knowledge to make same-sex sealing work in the establish framework, and you'd have to discount a number of teachings as "men and women operating with the light and knowledge they had available."

 

But if one can say it's "possible" that Joseph translated the characters on the papyri correctly into the BoA, and that those characters on the papyri were meant to say the text in the BoA... then I don't think it's that much harder to say it's "possible" that same-sex sealing could occur in the temple.  

Edited May 1, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Russell C McGregor]

You  haven't changed a bit Russell from your days back on LDSTalk about fifteen years ago.  Do I have the right person.?

I don't know what LDSTalk is.

[Russell C McGregor]

No.  

 

But... as has been pointed out... would a same-sex sealing in the temple be a "profane practice" if it was preceeded by a prophetic revelation allowing homosexual temple sealings to occur?

Counterfactual hypotheticals do not an argument make. Would theft be a "sin" if it was preceded by a prophetic revelation allowing Church members to steal? Would idol worship be a "profane practice" if it was preceded by a prophetic revelation allowing the worship of idols?

I humbly submit that idol worship is, for faithful Latter-day Saints, doctrinally impossible.

Is it the only such impossibility?

You know very well the word games you are playing here.

I think you are projecting.

[rockpond]

Ah, Cinepro.

The king of glib strikes again.

No, that's not a definition.

Examples are not a definition.

Comparing your examples to the OP, can you show how the OP negates or invalidates any of the examples you provided?

No?

Okay then, let's cut to the chase: how many of the points I raised in the OP are not compatible with being a faithful Latter-day Saint?

For instance, do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who is not loyal to the Church and its mission in the world?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who does not sustain -- meaning, actively uphold -- the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators? Or who sees those terms merely as institutional titles, and not as describing their actual roles as those whom the True and Living God has chosen to represent Him on the earth?

or that they might be God's servants in some sense or other, just like a bunch of other nice guys, like the Dalai Lama or Al Sharpton?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint is one who does not uphold the values and moral standards of the Church of Jesus Christ? Or who's willing to uphold them only whey they are in full agreement with current social fashions?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint sees the Church of Jesus Christ as nothing more than a friendly social club, having no special covenant relationship with God?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint would welcome any suggestion that it would be a good thing for the profane practices of a fallen world to be introduced into the House of the Lord, or reject the suggestion that such practices would be a desecration of the holy place?

Do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint sees a need to explain away, or qualify, those joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve which declare binding, official doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ? Or do you suppose that such a person would be arrogantly condescending to wait for the brethren to reach her level of "enlightenment" on settled matters of doctrine?

Or do you think a faithful Latter-day Saint would regard attitudes like that as apostate?

What's your view, Mr Cinepro?

I pass your little test -- all questions -- so kindly stop calling me unfaithful.

[Sanpitch]

OK Russell, how about ZLMB?  Do you remember that board?

[Russell C McGregor]

OK Russell, how about ZLMB?  Do you remember that board?

Yes.

[Russell C McGregor]

When??

 

Heh

You're right.

It should be If...

[Brian 2.0]

I humbly submit that idol worship is, for faithful Latter-day Saints, doctrinally impossible.

 

And you believe those who believe idol worship could be even doctrinally possible in the future are "unfaithful members"?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Russell C McGregor]

I pass your little test -- all questions -- so kindly stop calling me unfaithful.

I called you that?

But since you put yourself in the frame, I take it you've abandoned the notion that "same sex marriage" -- a profane practice of a fallen world if ever there was one -- should ever be introduced into the House of the Lord; and you now accept that such a practice would be a desecration of the holy place?

Thank you.

And I take it that you are no longer waiting for the Lord's anointed servants to reach your level of "enlightenment" on that subject?

Glad to hear it.

[Russell C McGregor]

And you believe those who believe idol worship could be even doctrinally possible in the future are "unfaithful members"?

Given that idol worship is not currently a hot subject of public debate, such that everyone is aware of the various arguments going around about it, and cannot help but be aware of the Church's vocal, public and prominent teaching on the subject; and also, such that surrendering on that topic would demonstrate moral cowardice -- then I don't know that such an idiotic position would necessarily call anyone's faithfulness into question.

But they'd have to be extraordinarily obtuse.

Wouldn't you agree?