No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nevermind

Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jwhitlock]

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. 

 

It's a strawman to claim that we must blindly accept any statement given by a general authority as truth, so your initial point is moot. The leaders of the church have also warned us of imputing infallibility to them, as you should be aware.

 

The understanding that there was a literal fall is important to salvation. The detailed understanding of how it specifically occurred is not. There's an important difference there, and one that I think the church recognizes implicitly from an official standpoint.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's a strawman to claim that we must blindly accept any statement given by a general authority as truth, so your initial point is moot. The leaders of the church have also warned us of imputing infallibility to them, as you should be aware.

The understanding that there was a literal fall is important to salvation. The detailed understanding of how it specifically occurred is not. There's an important difference there, and one that I think the church recognizes implicitly from an official standpoint.

Read Steve Peck's blog. He does not believe I a literal fall. His view is typical of the science staff at BYU. Still okay for a Latter-day saint? Edited May 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's a strawman to claim that we must blindly accept any statement given by a general authority as truth, so your initial point is moot. The leaders of the church have also warned us of imputing infallibility to them, as you should be aware.

 

I agree that it is a straw man. Did someone make that argument somewhere or is this your own strawman? My point was simply that the distinction you draw between SSM and other heresies is yours and yours alone.

[jwhitlock]

I agree that it is a straw man. Did someone make that argument somewhere or is this your own strawman? My point was simply that the distinction you draw between SSM and other heresies is yours and yours alone.

 

When you said "Are you saying you are in direct disagreement with a prophet seer and revealator?" you set up the strawman for blind obedience. 

 

Similarly, the connection you draw between Russell's statement and personally identifying those who are not faithful is yours and yours alone.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

When you said "Are you saying you are in direct disagreement with a prophet seer and revealator?" you set up the strawman for blind obedience. 

I was merely pointing out the fact that your view is far from the only view on the matter. If you inferred a blind obedience strawman it was your own.

 

 

Similarly, the connection you draw between Russell's statement and personally identifying those who are not faithful is yours and yours alone.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. This is logic 101. It's called a ">Modus tollens:

 

Let A be "Faithful Latter-day saints"

Let B be "No wish for SSM temple sealings"

 

Russell's argument is

If A then B

 

From this statement, by definition we can conclude that if not B (i.e. wish for "SSM temple sealings") then not A "not a faithful latter-day saint"). This isn't really open for debate. If you can't even concede this, I'm not sure if a productive conversation is possible. 

 

As for the personal impacts of an absolute statement feel free to respond to this post 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

[canard78]

Invalid comparison.

Why? Because you say so?

[canard78]

Profaning the temple would be actively allowing sinful behavior to be validated by temple ordinances - which is what you apparently want.

CFR on your claim that anyone ever said that blacks participating in temple ordinances was declared "profane" by the leaders of the church.

Reducing the situation of the priesthood ban to a behavioral comparison with SSM was obviously an invalid comparison.

Will "repugnant" do?

“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, 17 July 1947)

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

[canard78]

Yes Bro, Brigham often waxed hyperbolic.

I guess we'll have to wait for the command to engage in same sex marriage. As of yet I have no prior knowledge of such a command, nor even an indication as to why such a command could be deemed benificial to the puposes of God.

So sex has to be beneficial to God to be appropriate.

A widow remarries. She's sealed to her dead husband. She is also too old to have more children. If she and her husband I'm guessing you're ok with that. What divine purpose is served?

[jwhitlock]

Why? Because you say so?

 

Ignorance is such an ugly thing, as demonstrated with throwaway statements made before the thread is reviewed.

[jwhitlock]

Will "repugnant" do?

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

 

Do try to stay on track in the thread and not tangent off into irrelevancies. Reading the thread might help.

[Teancum]

Yes Bro, Brigham often waxed hyperbolic.I guess we'll have to wait for the command to engage in same sex marriage. As of yet I have no prior knowledge of such a command, nor even an indication as to why such a command could be deemed benificial to the puposes of God.

So you think what Brigham said about interracial sex more than once was simple hyperbole.

Also if JS was right and a God can command and revoke and whatever God says is right we can over turn andy alleged command agains same sex relations can He not?

[mfbukowski]

But they'd have to be extraordinarily obtuse.

Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think it makes any difference what color an idol is.

 

Oh wait a minute.

 

That's "Chartreuse".

 

Nevermind.

[mfbukowski]

There is still nothing to clarify. The doctrine is clear. At this point, all that could be done is simply change the doctrine.

 

Yesterday, same gender sex was a sin. Today, we declare it is no longer a sin.

 

It's pretty simple.

 

Could it happen? Perhaps.

 

I hope it doesn't. And I don't think it will.

Logical fallacies are fun to play around with, but the bottom line is that it would not be the same church if this doctrine were changed.

 

Our most unique doctrine is that God is a Man who has gender, that he has a wife who also has gender, and that humanity was designed to become like them in every way.

 

Same sex marriage is NOT "being like them".   Simple as that.  We grow up to be like Mom and Dad.

 

That essentially IS Mormonism.  For all the rest, we might just as well be Presbyterians, or the Disciples of Christ.

Edited May 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Do try to stay on track in the thread and not tangent off into irrelevancies. Reading the thread might help.

You said that no prophet had ever called inter-racial marriage profane.

The word "profane" simply means "secular" "not sacred" or "non-religious." In fact, to be really specific, it's from the Latin "outside the temple." "Pro" = before/outside and "fanum" = temple.

So return to my quote and have another read. Was mixed race marriage once considered non-doctrinal by LDS prophets and "outside the temple?" Is it still considered so now? Has something changed in doctrine?

If so, there is a precedent.

[Senator]

So sex has to be beneficial to God to be appropriate.

 

 

Speaking collectively and not individually, yes.

[Senator]

So you think what Brigham said about interracial sex more than once was simple hyperbole.

Also if JS was right and a God can command and revoke and whatever God says is right we can over turn andy alleged command agains same sex relations can He not?

 

He? or we?

 

If you're meaning He, then yes.

Now what?

[jwhitlock]

You said that no prophet had ever called inter-racial marriage profane.

The word "profane" simply means "secular" "not sacred" or "non-religious." In fact, to be really specific, it's from the Latin "outside the temple." "Pro" = before/outside and "fanum" = temple.

So return to my quote and have another read. Was mixed race marriage once considered non-doctrinal by LDS prophets and "outside the temple?" Is it still considered so now? Has something changed in doctrine?

If so, there is a precedent.

 

Again, you need to read the thread. You're aware that profane has other definitions, and the one you cherry picked was not the one used in the thread.

 

That, at least, should be clear when we're talking about profaning the temple vs. the state of being profane.

[canard78]

Again, you need to read the thread. You're aware that profane has other definitions, and the one you cherry picked was not the one used in the thread.

That, at least, should be clear when we're talking about profaning the temple vs. the state of being profane.

So if something were done in the temple that were against God's will and doctrine, would it profane the temple? If a beer were drunk in there? If a phone were stolen from the locker? Is it the committing of sin in the temple or even the facilitation or endorsement of sin in the temple that, in your definition, profanes it? Edited May 2, 2015 by canard78

[jwhitlock]

So if something were done in the temple that were against God's will and doctrine, would it profane the temple? If a beer were drunk in there? If a phone were stolen from the locker? Is it the committing of sin in the temple or even the facilitation or endorsement of sin in the temple that, in your definition, profanes it?

 

The definitions of "profane" can be found at dictionary.com.

[Brian 2.0]

The definitions of "profane" can be found at dictionary.com.

 

I would think it would be been considered "profane" back in BY days if someone sealed a black and wife couple together in the temple.

[canard78]

The definitions of "profane" can be found at dictionary.com.

In which case a simple yes would have been enough.

So that allows us to return to my question. Would a mixed race marriage have profaned the temple in the 1940s given they were described as being "repugnant" and against God's doctrine by a prophet?

[jwhitlock]

In which case a simple yes would have been enough.

So that allows us to return to my question. Would a mixed race marriage have profaned the temple in the 1940s given they were described as being "repugnant" and against God's doctrine by a prophet?

 

The original claim made was that leaders of the church said that blacks profaned the temple. That was the specific wording used. That claim hasn't been supported by a bunch of quotes (some may have even been first hand) about what some leaders of the church thought about blacks. Your question is irrelevant; the real question was whether any leader of the church actually used that phrasing. I'm still waiting for someone to support that with a quote.

[Russell C McGregor]

And I can respect that belief without calling you unfaithful.

What an astoundingly magnanimous declaration!

Given that Senator's "belief" on this point is nothing less than normative LDS doctrine, it would be rather astonishing to suggest that holding it makes anyone "unfaithful."

[rockpond]

The original claim made was that leaders of the church said that blacks profaned the temple. That was the specific wording used. That claim hasn't been supported by a bunch of quotes (some may have even been first hand) about what some leaders of the church thought about blacks. Your question is irrelevant; the real question was whether any leader of the church actually used that phrasing. I'm still waiting for someone to support that with a quote.

Profane was not in quotes in the original claim. I never said that they used that word just as Russell/Pahoran can't provide a reference for anyone claiming that homosexual behavior is "profane" nor that anyone has said that they hope for the temple to be "profaned".

Your CFR was answered.

Edited May 2, 2015 by rockpond