No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[ttribe]

I was alluding to tonie's possible perception.

 

I gathered as much, but (given the way things have gone lately) thought I should check anyway.

 

BTW, for the record, the rep points thing is not my theory; you have Mola to look to for that one.

 

Is that what this is all about? Will's behavior put you off, so now you're imputing it to other defenders? Wouldn't that be a sort of reverse-tribalism, to coin a term?

 

Nope, this is not "what this is all about"; just an example that came to mind.

 

Maybe you should read my whole post again and try to get what I said right in addition to not stripping what you think I said out of context.

 

 

 

Tonie giving you a rep point in and of it self is not indicative of anything other than Tonie agreeing with you at this point.

 

And no reasonable person would conclude otherwise.

 

My, my, you sure have picked up the appropriate rhetoric over the years.

[canard78]

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

I've seen the original questionnaires of some of Dehlin's studies. The questions seem to be written with an assumed answer in mind.

I'm not saying he is being intentionally manipulative but that he's just asking them in a way, probably out of inexperience, that is leading the respondent.

[canard78]

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 .

Incorrect. Typing on phones sometimes means I don't fully articulate. I meant "even a white man and a black woman" in the context that no issue of any priesthood ban could have justified the female not being temple married to the white priesthood holder.

For clarity and a final time, I have always been talking about the teaching about marriage between blacks and whites. I thought that was obvious. I'm genuinely surprised that you thought I was also talking about marriage between other races. I'll have to remember that you need it spelling out for you in future.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe you should read my whole post again and try to get what I said right in addition to not stripping what you think I said out of context.

 

 

 

Tonie giving you a rep point in and of it self is not indicative of anything other than Tonie agreeing with you at this point.

 

And no reasonable person would conclude otherwise.

 

 

My, my, you sure have picked up the appropriate rhetoric over the years.

Meaning?

[canard78]

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

This is one I find an interesting one. What doctrine do we have that teaches that the practicalities of earthly sexual intimacies are ones which will continue in the celestial kingdom (assuming that's what you're saying??)

[Scott Lloyd]

This is one I find an interesting one. What doctrine do we have that teaches that the practicalities of earthly sexual intimacies are ones which will continue in the celestial kingdom (assuming that's what you're saying??)

I took him as offering a considered opinion rather than alluding to doctrine.

[canard78]

I don't see anything inappropriate or wrong with the application of the term or concept of "team" for illustrative purposes.

I would say unabashedly, for example, that I want to be on the Lord's "team." There is a hymn we sing in Church, "Who's on the Lord's Side? Who?" (number 260 in the hymnal). Its title and text allude to scripture, the incident when Moses upbraided the people for worshiping the golden calf and cried, "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me" (Exodus 32:26).

On occasion, I have declared on this board that I cast my lot with the prophets and apostles. That is as much as to say I'm on their team.

Honestly, I find your aversion to this metaphor puzzling. Did you not have a good experience with high school sports or something?

Not necessarily. But they can be, if, for example, the points are being awarded as an expression of assent and agreement when the one making the post has declared such loyalty or, alternatively, one's opposition to "the Church, its leaders, etc."

I guess I'll have to start repping everything you say. That way people assume that you're using double speak to support the "middle-way" crowd. I'm sure the "NOMs" and "stayLDSers" will be delighted to discover you've been one of the gang all this time.

[ttribe]

Meaning?

 

[sigh]  I've read his post several times.  I've clearly stated I was referring to only one of his indicators from the original post, and the phrase - "And no reasonable person would conclude otherwise" sounds like it was taken verbatim from a certain other defender's lexicon.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

Incorrect. Typing on phones sometimes means I don't fully articulate. I meant "even a white man and a black woman" in the context that no issue of any priesthood ban could have justified the female not being temple married to the white priesthood holder.

For clarity and a final time, I have always been talking about the teaching about marriage between blacks and whites. I thought that was obvious. I'm genuinely surprised that you thought I was also talking about marriage between other races. I'll have to remember that you need it spelling out for you in future.

I think ERayR stated correctly that "in striving for effect [you] overreached."

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess I'll have to start repping everything you say. That way people assume that you're using double speak to support the "middle-way" crowd. I'm sure the "NOMs" and "stayLDSers" will be delighted to discover you've been one of the gang all this time.

I've read your post three times and have been unable to decipher it.

[Calm]

I'm not saying he is being intentionally manipulative but that he's just asking them in a way, probably out of inexperience, that is leading the respondent.

If he has done the same in his dissertation, that is going to be highly problematic.  Inexperience should have gone by the wayside several years ago if he is paying any attention to his studies.

[canard78]

I took him as offering a considered opinion rather than alluding to doctrine.

Ok, but presumably it's based on some teaching or other? Or is it merely a musing.

I'm not going to argue it either way. Just curious to know where the idea comes from. I've seen others suggest it and it tends to come from people who are perhaps on the generous side of 40-something (or appear to be). I wondered if it was something knocking around in the 1960s or 70s as in all my church life I've not heard it taught anywhere.

If it's a teaching at some point then it would support the stand against SSM. If the mechanics of creating spirit children are similar to those of creating physical ones then clearly gay eternal marriages ain't gonna work.

I suppose I'd imagined something a little more scalable and a lot less biological/earthly.

How long does a spirit gestate and how will one eternal wife ever manage a few billion of them. Even a polygamous group of 40 or 50 are going to take a while.

I'm genuinely not intending to mock, I'm just trying to get my head around the idea. I suppose understanding this idea (or teaching/doctrine) would be one way of helping me understand those who are so vehemently opposed to church sanctioned gay marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

[sigh]  I've read his post several times.  I've clearly stated I was referring to only one of his indicators from the original post, and the phrase - "And no reasonable person would conclude otherwise" sounds like it was taken directly from a certain other defender's lexicon verbatim.

Well, I've been known to use such phrasing. Is it my "lexicon" you refer to?

 

FYI, the reasonable-person standard is a time-honored test in law and in logic.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

 I'll have to remember that you need it spelling out for you in future.

I definitely need it, thanks.  Can easily lose track of where the conversation is when reading posts here and there and not all at once.

[Scott Lloyd]

If he has done the same in his dissertation, that is going to be highly problematic.  Inexperience should have gone by the wayside several years ago if he is paying any attention to his studies.

And more to the point, others should recognize the flaws in such methodology -- or have said flaws pointed out -- lest they be misled thereby.

[ttribe]

Well, I've been known to use such phrasing. Is it my "lexicon" you refer to?

 

FYI, the reasonable-person standard is a time-honored text in law and in logic.

 

As to your first statement - Nope.

 

As to your second - I work as an expert witness, Scott.  I am more than passingly familiar with the "reasonable-person standard."  What I didn't realize, apparently, was that whereas the court has decades of case law to establish what a "reasonable person" would do in a whole host of situations, there must be some "reasonable person" standard on this board about which I'm unaware.  Furthermore, I suspect (but don't know) that Mola had no such actual standard in mind, but was parroting a rhetorical device he's seen used countless times to shut down conversation and make a "critic" look like an "unreasonable" person for raising some issue.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ttribe

[canard78]

I think ERayR stated correctly that "it in striving for effect [you] overreached."

Not at all. In striving to get out of the house in time for work I undertyped.

You/ErayR seem to suggest that I intentionally overreached and wanted to gather all inter-racial marriages into my statement for effect. That was never my intention. If people genuinely got the impression that I was intentionally referencing all marriages of mixed race and not specifically black and white marriages then I will bear that in mind and speak/write more deliberately in future.

 

This thread has run its course.

[ttribe]

Not at all. In striving to get out of the house in time for work I undertyped.

You/ErayR seem to suggest that I intentionally overreached and wanted to gather all inter-racial marriages into my statement for effect. That was never my intention. If people genuinely got the impression that I was intentionally referencing all marriages of mixed race and not specifically black and white marriages then I will bear that in mind and speak/write more deliberately in future.

 

I got what you were saying on the first try.  It wasn't that hard to place in the context of the Church's actual history.

[canard78]

I've read your post three times and have been unable to decipher it.

If I have to explain it then it probably wasn't funny in the first place.

I was simply musing at the idea of giving you lots of rep points and thereby recruiting you to my "tribe" by association. My tribe being the "middle-way/NOMish/stayLDS" type variety.

[Scott Lloyd]

What was documented was merely that others use "beg the question" in the same improper, ignorance-based way that you did. This is indeed an argumentum ad populum. Russell was spot on.

 

And by the way, thank you for removing my name from your sig line.

 

Edited to add:

 

I went back and read the link. And I read Russell's rebuttal, which I regard as solid.

 

Limiting the definition of faithful Latter-day Saint to "has his/her name on the records of the Church" strikes me as extremely legalistic and hardly workable.

 

I see the process of apostasy as being not a single flashpoint event, but rather, a process along a continuum. When an excommunication for apostasy finally occurs, it is nearly always a formalization of what has already taken place gradually over time.

 

Full disclosure: I added the latter part of this post after jwhitlock had aready awarded me a rep point. He may or may not agree with the addendum.

I'm bumping this post, because I added to it later, and I'm afraid the added part might otherwise get lost in the shuffle.

 

I do believe that Cinepro's analysis, popular though it is (15 rep points; wow!) is flawed for the reasons I give above.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I have to explain it then it probably wasn't funny in the first place.

I was simply musing at the idea of giving you lots of rep points and thereby recruiting you to my "tribe" by association. My tribe being the "middle-way/NOMish/stayLDS" type variety.

In a way, damning me by association? I get it now.

 

I'm trying to let people finish posting but I'll be here all day. The thread is becoming too personal.

[canard78]

I got what you were saying on the first try. It wasn't that hard to place in the context of the Church's actual history.

I had hoped so too.

Having said that, Calmoriah has said she didn't entirely follow some of my posts and I've enough respect and "virtual-affection" for her to take her word for it.

With her feedback I will endeavour to always use the longer-hand description of "intermarriage between blacks and whites" or something similar.

All of this really seems like a pointless diversion from the simple reality that whatever we call it (short or long title), it doesn't alter the fact that in years past prophets taught it was against God's doctrine and today they don't.

I completely see why they might have mistakenly done so, given the culture of their day, but that's kind of my point. I personally believe that the LDS injunction against gay marriage is simply more culturally influenced prejudice that will eventually go the same way as the other cultural teachings.

Maybe it will be 40 (or 39+++, whatever Scott's timer says) or maybe it'll be 140 but I still think it's an inevitability. I also expect that on the day it happens it will be welcomed with as big a sigh of relief as there appears to have been in 1978 with ending of the race ban.

[cinepro]

I went back and read the link. And I read Russell's rebuttal, which I regard as solid.

 

Limiting the definition of faithful Latter-day Saint to "has his/her name on the records of the Church" strikes me as extremely legalistic and hardly workable.

 

I see the process of apostasy as being not a single flashpoint event, but rather, a process along a continuum. When an excommunication for apostasy finally occurs, it is nearly always a formalization of what has already taken place gradually over time.

 

But I didn't say that everyone on the records of the Church should be considered a "faithful Latter-day Saint".

 

RCM himself says it this way in the OP:

 

Grandfather, instead of admitting that Angus provides a counter-example, then shifts his ground by introducing a new category, namely the true Scotsman. And it happens that eschewing the use of sugar is a characteristic of this new ad-hoc category. Grandfather's assertion admits of no falsification because it is part of the definition of the category he has invented.

Those who are routinely accusing me of relying upon the No True Scotsman fallacy do so because they see a superficial resemblance with what I have asserted. They assume that the assertion "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" is structurally equivalent to "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

 

The key consideration is whether RCM has introduced an objectively definable "category", or has introduced an unfalsifiable construct that "he has invented".

 

There is an easy way to determine whether this is the "No True Scotsman Fallacy": 

 

 - Simply ask RCM where he has gotten his definition of "faithful Latter-day Saint"?

 

If he can provide externally objective references (in this case, official LDS Church publications and statements of leaders would probably be the best source for a definition on what constitutes a "faithful Latter-day Saint"), then it isn't the fallacy under consideration.

 

If the answer is some permutation of "I made it up/ figured it out/ discovered it myself using observation etc.", then that's pretty much the definition of the fallacy.

 

An interesting question would be whether or not a "group consensus" can disprove the fallacy.  For example, if we found enough LDS who agreed, would that prove that RCM's definition was sufficiently objective?  Likewise, if Grandfather were able to convince enough people, would it be possible for sugar-using people of Scottish descent to become disqualified of being considered "Scotsman"?