No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What you refuse to understand is that comparing allowing SSMs in the temple to the lifting of the priesthood ban is utterly invalid.

 

The reasons for that have been pointed out clearly to you, yet you simple refuse to accept that. Your perspective is that the priesthood ban and disallowing same sex marriages are totally equivalent. That perspective is simply wrong.

 

I get that you think Rockpond is wrong and has made an error of judgement or doctrine, but that is really off topic. The OP (which you applauded on page 1) specifically states that someone who errs in doctrine this way cannot by definition be a faithful latter-day saint (despite any other redeeming characteristics). Perhaps you should clarify what types of doctrinal errors make one an unfaithful latter-day saint instead of going off on this tangent. Is it solely this issue? What about someone who disagrees with Elder Holland on a literal Adam and Eve. Can that person be a faithful latter-day saint? What about a person like JLHPROF who believes in the Adam God theory. Can that person be a faithful latter-day saint? What about someone like Professor Bott at BYU who was still expounding on disavowed racial priesthood theories. Can he be a faithful latter-day saint? 

 

The list of General Authorities who have made a public statement that does not accord with current accepted doctrine is long. Are they not faithful? Joseph Smith said we ought not to try someone because they erred in Doctrine. Do you disagree?

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

I respect your beliefs.

 

All I'm trying to clarify with my participation on this thread is that Russell does not have the authority to declare that I am unfaithful because of that hope that I hold.  And, I agree that by doing that he is engaging the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

I don't share your characterization of what Russell is trying to point out with the OP.

 

Nor do I believe that we should never make a determination of whether someone is a faithful member of the church or not, particularly when someone is very public about their membership in the church, but is espousing things that are contradictory to church doctrine. There are plenty of examples I can think of where it was entirely appropriate to question a person's faithfulness in public situations where they presented themselves as members of the church.

 

However, that does not apply generally to more private interactions where we should forgo judgment.  IIRC, Russel has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

IIRC, Russel has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

Are you serious?

 

Russell states "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" and you don't see that discussing the faithfulness of anyone? 

 

Nor do I believe that we should never make a determination of whether someone is a faithful member of the church or not, particularly when someone is very public about their membership in the church, but is espousing things that are contradictory to church doctrine. There are plenty of examples I can think of where it was entirely appropriate to question a person's faithfulness in public situations where they presented themselves as members of the church.

 

Russell wasn't making the judgement on a particular individual who is outspoken in their criticism of the church or the teaching of false doctrine. The OP (which you applauded) specifically issued a blanket judgement of everyone and anyone who in their hearts (doesn't matter if they have even ever vocalized such a thing) hopes that one day same sex marriages will be approved in the Temple via revelation through the prophets.

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

I get that you think Rockpond is wrong and has made an error of judgement or doctrine, but that is really off topic. The OP (which you applauded on page 1) specifically states that someone who errs in doctrine this way cannot by definition be a faithful latter-day saint (despite any other redeeming characteristics). Perhaps you should clarify what types of doctrinal errors make one an unfaithful latter-day saint instead of going off on this tangent. Is it solely this issue? What about someone who disagrees with Elder Holland on a literal Adam and Eve. Can that person be a faithful latter-day saint? What about a person like JLHPROF who believes in the Adam God theory. Can that person be a faithful latter-day saint? What about someone like Professor Bott at BYU who was still expounding on disavowed racial priesthood theories. Can he be a faithful latter-day saint? 

 

The list of General Authorities who have made a public statement that does not accord with current accepted doctrine is long. Are they not faithful? Joseph Smith said we ought not to try someone because they erred in Doctrine. Do you disagree?

 

If you think I'm off topic, then maybe you should review rockpond's list of quotes from leaders of the church about blacks.

 

I did agree with the OP. I still do after all of this. I think that those who have opposed Russell have not made any real effort to understand where he's coming from on this. They just see it as an opportunity to shoot at him.

 

Some things that people support do indeed cast doubt about how faithful they are as members of the church. If I admire anti-Mormons as well-meaning and loving Christian individuals, if I continue to support racist viewpoints with our increased understanding, if I put political party affiliation before my membership in the church, if I think that the leaders of the church are wrong because clear church positions conflict with my viewpoints that have been shaped by the world, then I probably should evaluate how faithful I really am and consider repentance.

 

Leaders of the church have been clear - and consistent - when they indicate the just supporting SSM does not bring one's church membership into question. It's only when people start to act on those beliefs in open opposition to the church that it's a problem.

 

The real question is, when SSM is so clearly inconsistent with church doctrine and position, and there is no realistic indication that it will or should change, why do members of the church still hang on to it? The goal of membership in the church is to submit as fully to the will of God over time as possible. Support of SSM gets in the way of that and has the effect of putting a brake on personal spiritual progress.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

If you think I'm off topic, then maybe you should review rockpond's list of quotes from leaders of the church about blacks.

 

I did agree with the OP. I still do after all of this. I think that those who have opposed Russell have not made any real effort to understand where he's coming from on this. They just see it as an opportunity to shoot at him.

 

Some things that people support do indeed cast doubt about how faithful they are as members of the church. If I admire anti-Mormons as well-meaning and loving Christian individuals, if I continue to support racist viewpoints with our increased understanding, if I put political party affiliation before my membership in the church, if I think that the leaders of the church are wrong because clear church positions conflict with my viewpoints that have been shaped by the world, then I probably should evaluate how faithful I really am and consider repentance.

 

Leaders of the church have been clear - and consistent - when they indicate the just supporting SSM does not bring one's church membership into question. It's only when people start to act on those beliefs in open opposition to the church that it's a problem.

 

The real question is, when SSM is so clearly inconsistent with church doctrine and position, and there is no realistic indication that it will or should change, why do members of the church still hang on to it? The goal of membership in the church is to submit as fully to the will of God over time as possible. Support of SSM gets in the way of that and has the effect of putting a brake on personal spiritual progress.

I find none of your nuance in the OP. You state I have made no real effort to understand where he is coming from. Can you help me understand?

 

You said certain actions and opinions can cast doubt about how faithful we are. I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that since we all sin an fall short of the glory of God, I don't see how you can take one issue in isolation of the person as a whole and make it the litmus test for faithfulness. Is this not what Russell does?

 

He doesn't say that hoping for a SSM revelation casts doubt on how faithful we are. He states that is impossible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and wish for a SSM revelation at the same time. Do you agree with him? Why isn't the same true for other doctrinal missteps? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

The real question is, when SSM is so clearly inconsistent with church doctrine and position, and there is no realistic indication that it will or should change, why do members of the church still hang on to it? The goal of membership in the church is to submit as fully to the will of God over time as possible. Support of SSM gets in the way of that and has the effect of putting a brake on personal spiritual progress.

This is a good question. Do you view it as a good strategy to help those of us who have this desire to tell us that we are not faithful Latter-day Saints?

 

ETA: Can you not see how such a judgement - not on our errant viewpoint, but on our worthiness as a person - can be viewed as offensive?

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

 

Are you serious?

 

Russell states "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" and you don't see that discussing the faithfulness of anyone? 

 

 

What didn't you understand about my statement that " Russel has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such."

 

I've found on this board that many people have a habit of self identifying themselves when such statements are not aimed at them specifically. Rather than addressing the statement on its merits, they apply it to themselves and then take offense. That's exactly what's happened on this thread. So I'll state again, so you comprehend - Russell has not, to my knowledge, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

 

If someone wants to identify themselves as a SSM supporter, that's their choice. But they have no basis in claiming Russell accused them by name as being unfaithful. They've done that themselves.

 

If you want to honestly discuss the OP, then tell us how supporting SSM and wanting such marriages to be sealed in the temple is consistent with the position and doctrine of the church. If it is, then Russell is wrong. However, if such a position is in opposition to the doctrine of the church, then Russell has a point.

 

One other point concerning the True Scotsman. The way I understand it, it's more of an attempt to point out the fallacy of arbitrary criteria for determining who is a True Scotsman. Support for SSM is not arbitrary criteria, since there is a clear and official church position concerning it. Hence the True Scotsman fallacy does not apply in this case.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One more comment. The issue is not discerning if something is faithful. The issue is whether someone is faithful. More specifically if you can judge someone's faithfulness based  solely on their hope that one day same sex sealings will be approved by God.

So you are saying that one cannot discern if someone holds faithful beliefs? At what point do they be come unfaithful? 

 

And it is not that " That they hope one day God may approve of it" It is that "One day God will approve it". 2 totally different things. The 2nd example tells me that people that have that view are out of touch with LDS teachings. Hence not faithful. It is not a teaching a faithful member should have.

 

I am pretty sure there is more to being unfaithful than just one belief. Typically, it has been my observance that if they hold this view they have several other views that our out of step. Typically, the aspect that one day the prophets will reach their level of enlightenment. "We just need to get new blood in there then they will see how wrong they were".

Edited May 1, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Scott Lloyd]

If you think I'm off topic, then maybe you should review rockpond's list of quotes from leaders of the church about blacks.

 

I did agree with the OP. I still do after all of this. I think that those who have opposed Russell have not made any real effort to understand where he's coming from on this. They just see it as an opportunity to shoot at him.

 

Some things that people support do indeed cast doubt about how faithful they are as members of the church. If I admire anti-Mormons as well-meaning and loving Christian individuals, if I continue to support racist viewpoints with our increased understanding, if I put political party affiliation before my membership in the church, if I think that the leaders of the church are wrong because clear church positions conflict with my viewpoints that have been shaped by the world, then I probably should evaluate how faithful I really am and consider repentance.

 

Leaders of the church have been clear - and consistent - when they indicate the just supporting SSM does not bring one's church membership into question. It's only when people start to act on those beliefs in open opposition to the church that it's a problem.

 

The real question is, when SSM is so clearly inconsistent with church doctrine and position, and there is no realistic indication that it will or should change, why do members of the church still hang on to it? The goal of membership in the church is to submit as fully to the will of God over time as possible. Support of SSM gets in the way of that and has the effect of putting a brake on personal spiritual progress.

Indeed.

 

Incidentally, time remaining in the arbitrary 40-year period within which opponents predict that the Church will abandon its doctrine and position on same-sex "marriage": 39 years, 9 months, 1 week, 2 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes, 21 seconds.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

I find none of your nuance in the OP. You state I have made no real effort to understand where he is coming from. Can you help me understand?

 

You said certain actions and opinions can cast doubt about how faithful we are. I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that since we all sin an fall short of the glory of God, I don't see how you can take one issue in isolation of the person as a whole and make it the litmus test for faithfulness. Is this not what Russell does?

 

He doesn't say that hoping for a SSM revelation casts doubt on how faithful we are. He states that is impossible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint and wish for a SSM revelation at the same time. Do you agree with him? Why isn't the same true for other doctrinal missteps? 

 

You're correct in that we all sin, and we need to be aware of that. We're required to make judgments in righteousness, yet we have our own baggage to deal with.

 

So what makes someone a faithful member of the church? I would submit that it is about a person humbling themselves before God, being committed to coming out of the world, trying to become fully engaged and supportive of the kingdom of God on the earth, and striving to repent. Being a faithful member of the church is more about process than a state of being. Being sanctified is not done in a day, but through careful repentance over time.

 

If we hold on to things of the world, then we put a stumbling block before our progress. We allow something to take root and canker our souls. We start to falter in our progress and in our faithfulness. It doesn't happen all at once, but it does happen over time. It doesn't matter whether it's anger or lust or greed or materialism or admiration of the philosophies of men, if we don't truly repent of those things and submit ourselves to God, we will become unfaithful.

 

So what's different about support for SSM that makes it such a target? Perhaps it's because there are so many people who are telling us that we shouldn't lump it in with the rest of those stumbling blocks, that it's the right thing, and that the church is wrong in its doctrine concerning SSM, If I publicly identify myself as angry or lustful or whatever, I would hope it would be in the context of trying to overcome it in my life so I can be a more faithful member. Yet here we have people telling us that it's all right to support SSM, that there's nothing wrong with doing so, when it so clearly stands in opposition to church doctrine and the will of God.

 

So you tell me how we should approach SSM in the church. Keep our mouths shut about it, or identify support of it as a problem for Latter-day Saints?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What didn't you understand about my statement that " Russel has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such."

This is a distinction without a difference. If I say all people who have red hair are faithless heretics, I may not have called anyone out individually, but I have passed judgement on them none the less.

 

I've found on this board that many people have a habit of self identifying themselves when such statements are not aimed at them specifically. Rather than addressing the statement on its merits, they apply it to themselves and then take offense. That's exactly what's happened on this thread. So I'll state again, so you comprehend - Russell has not, to my knowledge, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

If you are discussing me, you have missed the boat. I consider myself a Heretic. While an orthoprax Mormon, my beliefs differ in significant ways from orthodox and accepted LDS thoughts.

 

If someone wants to identify themselves as a SSM supporter, that's their choice. But they have no basis in claiming Russell accused them by name as being unfaithful. They've done that themselves.

 

I really can't quite wrap my head around this. Of course Russell hasn't accused them by name as being unfaithful. That doesn't change the fact that he is calling them unfaithful.

 

If you want to honestly discuss the OP, then tell us how supporting SSM and wanting such marriages to be sealed in the temple is consistent with the position and doctrine of the church. If it is, then Russell is wrong. However, if such a position is in opposition to the doctrine of the church, then Russell has a point.

It is absolutely inconsistent with the position and doctrine of the church. The same as a belief in a non-literal Adam and Eve. Despite the fact that the majority of the BYU biology department disbelieves a literal Adam and Eve, I wouldn't dream of judging them as faithless. Nor would I propose that a literal view of Adam and Eve is a good litmus test for faithfulness.

 

One other point concerning the True Scotsman. The way I understand it, it's more of an attempt to point out the fallacy of arbitrary criteria for determining who is a True Scotsman. Support for SSM is not arbitrary criteria, since there is a clear and official church position concerning it. Hence the True Scotsman fallacy does not apply in this case.

But we aren't talking about whether SSM is doctrinal. We are talking about whether a "faithful" latter-day saint can hope for a day when revelation comes to the prophet allowing same sex marriage. It applies in that Russell essentially defines faithful to exclude such a belief.

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So you are saying that one cannot discern if someone holds faithful beliefs?

NO NO NO.  Of course you can. The question is can you discern whether someone is a "faithful latter-day saint" on the basis of one specific unorthodox belief with no knowledge of anything else. Can Brigham Young be judged as an unfaithful latter-day saint because he taught the Heresy that Adam was God? I'd say no.

At what point do they be come unfaithful?

This is a good and thoughtful question. I'd want to know a lot more about them before I passed judgement.

And it is not that " That they hope one day God may approve of it" It is that "One day God will approve it". 2 totally different things. The 2nd example tells me that people that have that view are out of touch with LDS teachings. Hence not faithful. It is not a teaching a faithful member should have.

Two different things I agree. I'm not aware that Russell made any distinction in his sweeping judgement. Are you? Are you saying that any member that thinks his leader is wrong on a particular subject (even if he keeps it to himself) can't by definition be described as faithful latter-day saint? Seems to me that know one anywhere would meet this high bar.

I am pretty sure there is more to being unfaithful than just one belief. Typically, it has been my observance that if they hold this view they have several other views that our out of step. Typically, the aspect that one day the prophets will reach their level of enlightenment. "We just need to get new blood in there then they will see how wrong they were".

Typically? Can you find such nuance in the OP? I can't. It specifically states that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"

[jwhitlock]

This is a distinction without a difference. If I say all people who have red hair are faithless heretics, I may not have called anyone out individually, but I have passed judgement on them none the less.

 

If you are discussing me, you have missed the boat. I consider myself a Heretic. While an orthoprax Mormon, my beliefs differ in significant ways from orthodox and accepted LDS thoughts.

 

 

I really can't quite wrap my head around this. Of course Russell hasn't accused them by name as being unfaithful. That doesn't change the fact that he is calling them unfaithful.

 

It is absolutely inconsistent with the position and doctrine of the church. The same as a belief in a non-literal Adam and Eve. Despite the fact that the whole of the majority of the BYU biology department disbelieves a literal Adam and Eve, I wouldn't dream of judging them as faithless. Nor would I propose that a literal view of Adam and Eve is a good litmus test for faithfulness.

 

But we aren't talking about whether SSM is doctrinal. We are talking about whether a "faithful" latter-day saint can hope for a day when revelation comes to the prophet allowing same sex marriage. It applies in that Russell essentially defines faithful to exclude such a belief.

 

How ironic. In your response, you did to me exactly what I said others were doing to Russell in this thread.

 

I still find it interesting that there is a tendency here to self-identify with general statements and to then make the discussion about their own personal faithfulness - which is what has happened here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Typically? Can you find such nuance in the OP? I can't. It specifically states that "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple"

On that I agree. No faithful LDS would want to see that. That is a totally different thing than hoping for a revelation some day.

 

Can you see the difference? It is quite colossal.

 

Wishing to see it puts them self above what is currently accepted.

 

Hoping for a revelation is different. I do admit that I am not sure why some one hopes for a revelation that allows it. That still shows to me a disconnect in what is talked about in pretty plain talks in recent GC talks.

 

But hoping for something is different than making pronouncements that once we get new blood in there and get more enlightened men then we will receive the revelation. It puts the person making the pronouncements above the prophets. That is just not something a faithful LDS would do, in my mind. And further more if some one identifies with that, how is that my problem?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So what's different about support for SSM that makes it such a target? Perhaps it's because there are so many people who are telling us that we shouldn't lump it in with the rest of those stumbling blocks, that it's the right thing, and that the church is wrong in its doctrine concerning SSM, If I publicly identify myself as angry or lustful or whatever, I would hope it would be in the context of trying to overcome it in my life so I can be a more faithful member. Yet here we have people telling us that it's all right to support SSM, that there's nothing wrong with doing so, when it so clearly stands in opposition to church doctrine and the will of God.

I can see your frustration with this. I think it is a good topic for discussion. The problem is that we have good people in the church who after prayfully and faithfully studying this issue, decide that they can't see it for a sin. I've never heard anyone in the church claim that being angry or lusting is good, but I guess its possible. A better analog would be the theory of evolution. A great many in the church (including most of the science staff at BYU) have looked at this heresy and after prayerful study concluded it is true. They can't deny what they know. They even teach it. The theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the flood and a literal Adam and Eve that lived 6000 years ago. It goes against years and years of prophetic statements. They don't apologize about their heresy, but neither do they attempt to correct the church or the brethren on the matter. In every other way they support the church and attempt to live their lives faithfully. Do you consider them as not "faithful Latter-day Saints" because of this one belief?

 

So you tell me how we should approach SSM in the church. Keep our mouths shut about it, or identify support of it as a problem for Latter-day Saints?

Which of those options do you see Russell espousing in the OP? I see neither. I see Russell saying that a desire/hope for Same Sex sealings disqualifies one from being considered faithful.

I personally think we ought to look to the brethren on the matter. They seem like they are in a good position to teach on this issue and they forcefully taught about it at the most recent conference. Why do we need to look beyond the mark, go beyond what they say and create a new litmus test which has no grounding in any official statement or pronouncement that I am aware of?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On that I agree. No faithful LDS would want to see that. That is a totally different thing than hoping for a revelation some day.

 

Can you see the difference? It is quite colossal.

I admit I don't see the difference between hoping for a revelation and wishing for a revelation. Is that what this seven page thread is about? 

 

But hoping for something is different than making pronouncements that once we get new blood in there and get more enlightened men then we will receive the revelation. It puts the person making the pronouncements above the prophets. That is just not something a faithful LDS would do, in my mind. And further more if some one identifies with that, how is that my problem?

Can you show me where in the statement "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnized in the Temple" I can find anything about pronouncements? I missed it on my first few read throughs. 

[stemelbow]

nevermind. Nothing more from me, I hope.

Edited May 1, 2015 by stemelbow

[SeekingUnderstanding]

How ironic. In your response, you did to me exactly what I said others were doing to Russell in this thread.

 

I still find it interesting that there is a tendency here to self-identify with general statements and to then make the discussion about their own personal faithfulness - which is what has happened here.

Hence the if. I have no idea if you had me in mind or not, but wished to clarify just in case. It was an honest attempt to help the conversation move forward. Yours was a true general statement (i.e. not directed at any individual)

 

Russell on the other hand didn't make a general statement. He didn't say that most of the those that he observed that supported same sex marriage couldn't be considered faithful. He made an absolute statement. Absolutes include everyone in a certain class. Can you see the difference? Let's say I make a statement that all black men of African descent were less valiant in the pre-existence. A black man of African Descent then comes up to me and says that I called him less valiant. Is it your belief that this man would be in error? 

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Absolute statement:

No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple

General statement:

I've found on this board that many people have a habit of self identifying themselves when such statements are not aimed at them specifically. Rather than addressing the statement on its merits, they apply it to themselves and then take offense. That's exactly what's happened on this thread. So I'll state again, so you comprehend - Russell has not, to my knowledge, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

Notice any differences?

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cinepro]

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?

I suspect most LDS, faithful or not, are "loyal" in some ways, and "disloyal" in others.

 

 

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?

CFR that Al Sharpton is a "nice guy."

 

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?

It depends on which "moral standards" we're talking about. For example, the Book of Mormon speaks out against "costly apparel", yet I've known many LDS who would probably consider themselves "faithful" yet they buy costly apparel according to current social fashions. So it seems people look at it in many different ways.

 

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?

Is there anyone who claims to be a "faithful LDS" who sees the Church that way?

 

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?

As others have pointed out, they probably have a different understanding of what constitutes a "profane practice of a fallen world". I can't find a single instance of the phrase "profane practice" on the Church website, so we're back into the territory of you making up phrases and definitions, so I guess it's whatever you imagine it to be.

 

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?

When our leaders are wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if a "faithful LDS" patiently waits for them to recognize their error, no matter how long it takes. Even "faithful LDS" probably realize that things change, even things which seemed like "settled matters of doctrine" at the time.

 

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

I know some LDS get really turned on by calling other LDS "apostate". I don't know if that's a characteristic of "faithful LDS" though. We might need another word for it.

Edited May 1, 2015 by cinepro

[jwhitlock]

I can see your frustration with this. I think it is a good topic for discussion. The problem is that we have good people in the church who after prayfully and faithfully studying this issue, decide that they can't see it for a sin. I've never heard anyone in the church claim that being angry or lusting is good, but I guess its possible. A better analog would be the theory of evolution. A great many in the church (including most of the science staff at BYU) have looked at this heresy and after prayerful study concluded it is true. They can't deny what they know. They even teach it. The theory of evolution is in direct conflict with the flood and a literal Adam and Eve that lived 6000 years ago. It goes against years and years of prophetic statements. They don't apologize about their heresy, but neither do they attempt to correct the church or the brethren on the matter. In every other way they support the church and attempt to live their lives faithfully. Do you consider them as not "faithful Latter-day Saints" because of this one belief?

 

Which of those options do you see Russell espousing in the OP? I see neither. I see Russell saying that a desire/hope for Same Sex sealings disqualifies one from being considered faithful.

I personally think we ought to look to the brethren on the matter. They seem like they are in a good position to teach on this issue and they forcefully taught about it at the most recent conference. Why do we need to look beyond the mark, go beyond what they say and create a new litmus test which has no grounding in any official statement or pronouncement that I am aware of?

 

There are core doctrines and practices in the church that are most important because the pertain directly to our salvation. None of the things you mentioned qualify in that respect. Hence, they become more theological debates than anything else; whether or not you fully understand evolution, the flood, Adam and Eve, etc. here doesn't really make that much difference on where you end up on the other side. As such, I don't consider the examples you gave as pertaining much to faithfulness.

 

However, the temple and family relationships pertain very much to our salvation. The question of SSM directly impacts those core doctrines and practices and so fall in a different category as those you mentioned.

 

Again, I disagree that Russell was presenting any litmus test for judgment, especially since neither he nor anyone else here stands as a judge in this matters. Instead, I see it more as a concept question presented for discussion. It did not become personalized until others made it so.

 

A better response to Russell would have been to demonstrate how support of SSM in the temple would qualify one as a faithful member of the church, or at the least demonstrate why such support doesn't matter when it comes to faithfulness. That hasn't been demonstrated here to my knowledge.

[rockpond]

I don't share your characterization of what Russell is trying to point out with the OP.

 

Nor do I believe that we should never make a determination of whether someone is a faithful member of the church or not, particularly when someone is very public about their membership in the church, but is espousing things that are contradictory to church doctrine. There are plenty of examples I can think of where it was entirely appropriate to question a person's faithfulness in public situations where they presented themselves as members of the church.

 

However, that does not apply generally to more private interactions where we should forgo judgment.  IIRC, Russel has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone specifically before they've accused him of identifying them as such.

 

You are correct that Russell has not, in this thread, discussed the faithfulness of anyone in particular.  This thread was opened (by Russell) to discuss the accusations of his use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.  This relates back to two other threads in which he said that I could not be a faithful Latter-day Saint because of my belief & hope regarding marriage for our gay and lesbian brothers & sisters.  (Note:  In one of those threads, he was making the accusation as Pahoran.  He tried to emphasize his point using some statements that got Pahoran permanently banned.  Then he began using his other username, Russell, and returned to making the same accusation.)

[jwhitlock]

Hence the if. I have no idea if you had me in mind or not, but wished to clarify just in case. It was an honest attempt to help the conversation move forward. Yours was a true general statement (i.e. not directed at any individual)

 

Russell on the other hand didn't make a general statement. He didn't say that most of the those that he observed that supported same sex marriage couldn't be considered faithful. He made an absolute statement. Absolutes include everyone in a certain class. Can you see the difference? Let's say I make a statement that all black men of African descent were less valiant in the pre-existence. A black man of African Descent then comes up to me and says that I called him less valiant. Is it your belief that this man would be in error? 

 

For the sake of accuracy, Russell's statement was not that those who supported SSM couldn't be considered faithful. It was that faithful members of the church would not be supporters of SSM. There is a bit of difference between the two.

 

There are a number of divisive issues in society and in the church that have the potential to affect the division of the wheat and tares when it occurs.  SSM is one of them. It's not there yet, but I would not be surprised to see it become one - along with other things.

 

Again, rather than people self-identifying which side they're on, why not discuss the merits of what Russell has stated and debunk it (if possible). I don't see claims that Russell is pushing some kind of litmus test on us as doing that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

There are core doctrines and practices in the church that are most important because the pertain directly to our salvation. None of the things you mentioned qualify in that respect. Hence, they become more theological debates than anything else; whether or not you fully understand evolution, the flood, Adam and Eve, etc. here doesn't really make that much difference on where you end up on the other side. As such, I don't consider the examples you gave as pertaining much to faithfulness.

 

Interesting. Are you saying you are in direct disagreement with a prophet seer and revealator? Elder McConkie speaking as such identified seven deadly heresies. Evolution, and Adam God (mentioned earlier) are both on his list of deadly heresies. Yet they do not pertain to faithfulness? The literal fall and its impact on the doctrine of the atonement, was called out in the most recent general conference, yet a figurative Adam and Eve doesn't make much of a difference? 

 

It's fine to make that distinction but if you are claiming it is one that the church would back you up on, I'm going to call for a CFR. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For the sake of accuracy, Russell's statement was not that those who supported SSM couldn't be considered faithful. It was that faithful members of the church would not be supporters of SSM. There is a bit of difference between the two.

If you draw them out using Venn Diagrams or any other form of logic, there is not difference.

 

Again, rather than people self-identifying which side they're on, why not discuss the merits of what Russell has stated and debunk it (if possible). I don't see claims that Russell is pushing some kind of litmus test on us as doing that.

Russell's statement has been shown to be circular. As has been stated at least twice by me (and not responded to) his logic chain breaks down when he assumes all faithful saints would define revelation approved same sex sealings to be profane.

 

So your argument boils down to this:

"No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" because a faithful Latter-day saint 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; "

 

What passes for a profane practice? Well according to you, same sex marriage does.

 

So to sum up, "No faithful Latter-day Saint wishes to see same sex marriages solemnised in the Temple" because a faithful Latter-day saint would "resist any suggestion that it would be a good thing for [same sex marriages] to be introduced into the house of the Lord"

 

I'll grant you that this might not be a no true scotsman fallacy, but it is certainly circular logic. Whatever floats your boat I guess.