No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[canard78]

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.

 

How wonderfully specific of you. You're pretty much onto a winner there. First you refuse to nail down the definition of "profane" and instead refer me to dictionary.com which has no less than seven definitions of the word and then you require an exact wording in your request for sources.

 

Can you show where the prophets have called gay (temple) marriage profane? If not, does that mean they believe it is not profane?

[rockpond]

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."

I assumed your are wise enough to realized that comment was directed toward you (the self-appointed arbiter of faithfulness) rather than Senator.

My belief in the power of continuing revelation is also consistent with normative LDS doctrine but that didn't stop you from telling me that I am not a faithful church member because of it.

[Russell C McGregor]

Yes, past teachings by prophets and apostles regarding race have been repudiated.  Thankfully.  For that reason, I would suggest that current teachings by prophets and apostles about homosexuals could also be repudiated.  But you are welcome to differ -- and I won't see a need to question your faith.

I see what you did there, Rockpond.

You are trying to pretend that the objection to "same sex marriage" is an objection to "homosexuals" as people.

And just in case anyone missed that point, here it is again:

 

Let's take a step back and review:

 

Russell/Pahoran said that I was an unfaithful member because of my hope that someday gay couples will be allowed (through the revelatory process) to be sealed in the temple.

 

His assertion is (or was) that no faithful member could desire for something "profane" to be allowed in the temple.  It's Russell declaring homosexual couples to be profane.  I assume he's using the definition I quoted and saying that they are impure, defiled.

The bolded statement is explicitly contrary to fact.

Explicitly.

That you may understand me now (if indeed you have not understood me before, which would be rather surprising) it is homosexual activities that are profane.

 

When told that such a change is impossible, I explained that there was a time that those of African descent were told that they were impure, unconsecrated, unworthy of the temple.  And that changed... through revelation.

And it remains an invalid comparison.

It is accessible to those who only have a passing acquaintance with LDS life and teaching; but those who claim an intimate, lived knowledge of the restored Gospel would do themselves a favour if they didn't keep bringing it up.

 

The restriction on Temple attendance was a question of eligibility, and it flowed from the Priesthood ban.  It was always acknowledged to be a state of affairs that would change at some point in time.

 

By contrast, homosexual acts are forbidden as a question of morality, and that does not change.

 

Those who are mere observers of the LDS scene might suppose that the principle of continuing revelation somehow means that nothing could ever be settled, and that every teaching must be more or less tentative.  But those who know and live the Gospel understand that this is simply not so.  The Priesthood ban, as I've mentioned, was always expected to end sometime.  The on-again, off-again thing about women not giving the prayers in Sacrament Meeting was merely a convention.  Bishops performing civil marriages in chapels is a matter of policy.  On all of those things, further revelation could bring further changes.

 

But eternal questions of right and wrong are out of scope.  There won't be further revelation thereon, and to desire it is to express rebellion against the Lord's final word on the subject.

 

Which is not a very -- faithful thing to do.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

As an interesting comparison, we are approaching the 20th anniversary of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."  I didn't notice it at the time, but this remarkable document rather firmly closes the door on "same sex marriage" ever being acceptable in the Church.  (Indeed, when, some time after, I saw homosexual activists complaining about the Proclamation, I couldn't understand what their beef was.  How could it possibly affect them?)

 

I'm wondering whether we are seeing any sign of the Proclamation being sidelined or ignored, or lapsing into irrelevance.

Somehow, I don't think so.

[Russell C McGregor]

So the difference is the antipathy towards gay people is greater than it was towards black people?

 

Do you find it tactically useful to pretend that the principled positions of your opponents are merely expressions of "antipathy?"

 

Or are you going to tell us that you really don't get it?

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Here's your original quote:

 

"There was a time when a person of African descent being married in the temple was deemed profane by none other than prophets of the Lord."

 

As Russell used the word, he meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that introducing SSM into the temple would be profane - or unholy, since canard is trying to play definition games. It would be introducing that which the Lord has forbidden as a behavior (homosexual relationships) into the temple sealing.  That would indeed be unholy, and is something you deny when you "hope" that the Lord will change the minds of the prophets (as if He doesn't guide them already) and redefine sin.

 

The quotes that you provided - and I found it interesting that you, as a member of the church, had such a long list of such quotes readily available - did not address in any way the introduction of blacks into the temple as unholy or profane. 

 

So the CFR has not been answered.

 

As for your other misunderstanding in your post, it was Russell himself who declared that the introduction of SSM into the temple would be profane. Are you really demanding that he provide a CFR for himself?

 

Ultimately, if the Lord views homosexual behavior as a sin, then Russell is absolutely right. Introducing it into the temple would profane the temple. Someone who hopes that SSM will one day occur in the temple is indeed someone who hopes that the temple will be profaned. It's rather simple logic.

[rockpond]

I see what you did there, Rockpond.

You are trying to pretend that the objection to "same sex marriage" is an objection to "homosexuals" as people.

And just in case anyone missed that point, here it is again:

The bolded statement is explicitly contrary to fact.

Explicitly.

That you may understand me now (if indeed you have not understood me before, which would be rather surprising) it is homosexual activities that are profane.

And it remains an invalid comparison.

It is accessible to those who only have a passing acquaintance with LDS life and teaching; but those who claim an intimate, lived knowledge of the restored Gospel would do themselves a favour if they didn't keep bringing it up.

The restriction on Temple attendance was a question of eligibility, and it flowed from the Priesthood ban. It was always acknowledged to be a state of affairs that would change at some point in time.

By contrast, homosexual acts are forbidden as a question of morality, and that does not change.

Those who are mere observers of the LDS scene might suppose that the principle of continuing revelation somehow means that nothing could ever be settled, and that every teaching must be more or less tentative. But those who know and live the Gospel understand that this is simply not so. The Priesthood ban, as I've mentioned, was always expected to end sometime. The on-again, off-again thing about women not giving the prayers in Sacrament Meeting was merely a convention. Bishops performing civil marriages in chapels is a matter of policy. On all of those things, further revelation could bring further changes.

But eternal questions of right and wrong are out of scope. There won't be further revelation thereon, and to desire it is to express rebellion against the Lord's final word on the subject.

Which is not a very -- faithful thing to do.

I'll give your perceptions of what constitutes a faithful Latter-day Saint the appropriate weight. Your use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy has become comical at this point... You're still using it here.

Now, if you are clarifying your remarks to say that it is only "homosexual activities" that are profane than I would ask what "homosexual activities" have I suggested should happen in the temple?

[Teancum]

He? or we?

 

If you're meaning He, then yes.

Now what?

Sorry for the typos. I need to check closer when I post from my iPad.

Yes He....

What now? You agree then thqt God can command or change homosexual relations to not being a sin.. Correct?

[Teancum]

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."

Yes it was magniminous.

Glad you recognize it as such especially given how un-magniminous the whole basis of this thread is.

[rockpond]

Here's your original quote:

 

"There was a time when a person of African descent being married in the temple was deemed profane by none other than prophets of the Lord."

 

As Russell used the word, he meant (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that introducing SSM into the temple would be profane - or unholy, since canard is trying to play definition games. It would be introducing that which the Lord has forbidden as a behavior (homosexual relationships) into the temple sealing.  That would indeed be unholy, and is something you deny when you "hope" that the Lord will change the minds of the prophets (as if He doesn't guide them already) and redefine sin.

 

The quotes that you provided - and I found it interesting that you, as a member of the church, had such a long list of such quotes readily available - did not address in any way the introduction of blacks into the temple as unholy or profane. 

 

So the CFR has not been answered.

 

As for your other misunderstanding in your post, it was Russell himself who declared that the introduction of SSM into the temple would be profane. Are you really demanding that he provide a CFR for himself?

 

Ultimately, if the Lord views homosexual behavior as a sin, then Russell is absolutely right. Introducing it into the temple would profane the temple. Someone who hopes that SSM will one day occur in the temple is indeed someone who hopes that the temple will be profaned. It's rather simple logic.

 

Let me try to clarify...

 

Do we agree that Russell is stating that our best understanding is that gay marriage is a profane practice and that anyone who holds out hope that the Lord may one day reveal that gay couples could be sealed in the temple is not a faithful member of the church?

 

My counter is that there was a time when allowing black couples to be sealed in the temple was also taught to be profane (not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled) and I provided statements to support that statement.  (Easily available on the internet, not something I keep on hand.)

 

Russell believes that gay marriage in the temple is profane and he is welcome to that belief -- no need for a CFR.

 

I believe that the Lord has the authority to determine if gay couples can be married in the temple.  And Russell lacks the authority to declare me unfaithful for that belief.

[Senator]

Sorry for the typos. I need to check closer when I post from my iPad.

Yes He....

What now? You agree then thqt God can command or change homosexual relations to not being a sin.. Correct?

 

What part of YES don't you understand?

Edited May 3, 2015 by Senator

[Russell C McGregor]

I gather from his context that Russell was using something close to this definition of profane (from Merriam-Webster):  "not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled"

 

If you are really questioning that we have taught that in our past, I'll provide you with some quotes to satisfy the CFR...

Apostle Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine (1958), p. 476

Who?

Latter-day Saints don't use "Apostle" as a title of address for a person, but as the name of an office. When we speak of the person holding that office, it is Elder Bruce R. McConkie (or whomever.)

Also, those who are interested in accuracy tend to call people by the titles that are relevant to the time they do whatever it is they are being cited for. It isn't truthful to imply that Elder McConkie wrote MD as an apostle, when he didn't become such until 1972.

Whether or not you were aware of these points, it is apparent to me that you have merely cut-and-pasted this "wall of text" from some website somewhere. Someone else has done the tendentious cherry-picking for you.

 

"...those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who there­by had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes."

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1939

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven.

The Contributor, Vol. 6, p. 297, as quoted in Youth and the Church, p. 167

"In the pre-existence the Negroes `through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.' "

Apostle Mark Petersen Race Problems - As They Affect the Church

We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men.... It ap­pears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.... Who placed the Negroes orig­inally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God?.... The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of resi­dence.... He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of ex­tension of the curse (2 Nephi 5:21).... If there is one drop of negro blood in my children... they receive the curse. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it.... But let them enjoy these things among themselves.... what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

Joseph Fielding Smith The Way to Perfection, p.101

" Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.

Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed

"The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom..."

JD, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855

The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views upon slavery. I will here say a little more upon this point. The conduct of the whites towards the slaves will, in many cases, send both slave and master to hell. This statement comprises much in a few words. The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve. It is their privilege to live so as to enjoy many of the blessings which attend obedience to the first principles of the Gospel, though they are not entitled to the Priesthood.

Brigham Young  JD, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

John Taylor Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, Pg.304

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it.

John Taylor Journal of Discourses Vol.23, Pg.336

He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding just to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

John A. Widtsoe, Improvement Era 1944

The opinion is held by many members of the church that because the negro was a neutral in the great council, held in the heavens before the foundations of the earth were laid, he has been punished with a black skin. There is no evidence, as far as found, to justify this belief. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the church doctrine that all who have been permitted to come upon this earth and take upon themselves bodies, accepted the plan of salvation. Those who did not accept it were cast out and became the angels of the evil one. The cause of the black skin of the negro is not known. A mark was placed upon Cain because of his sin. The negroes are supposed to be his descendants. Since these people, themselves, did not commit Cain's sin, it is very probable that in some way, unknown to us, the distinction harks back to the pre-existent state.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 65

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 102

Then we will say: Blessed be the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who has blessed us with the blessings of his glorious kingdom, where through our faithfulness we may dwell in eternal truth and light. In the spirit of sympathy, mercy and faith, we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren-children of God-notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.

Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 63

I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 61

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 43

That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 6

Some of us are learning to swear almost as good as some of the Gentiles. Some of us are learning to get drunk almost as good as they can. I do not think that will benefit us very much. Some of us are learning to cheat and defraud our neighbors, and some are learning to steal. There is nothing smart about all this. A negro, a Hottentot, or an Indian can do that. There is nothing in these practices that bespeaks an intelligent mind, or that would recommend a person the estimation of a good man, angels, or God. There is nothing Godlike in them.

None of which says that marriages involving Black people are "profane."

I guess that's the best you can do, is it?

[rockpond]

Who?

Latter-day Saints don't use "Apostle" as a title of address for a person, but as the name of an office. When we speak of the person holding that office, it is Elder Bruce R. McConkie (or whomever.)

Also, those who are interested in accuracy tend to call people by the titles that are relevant to the time they do whatever it is they are being cited for. It isn't truthful to imply that Elder McConkie wrote MD as an apostle, when he didn't become such until 1972.

Whether or not you were aware of these points, it is apparent to me that you have merely cut-and-pasted this "wall of text" from some website somewhere. Someone else has done the tendentious cherry-picking for you.

None of which says that marriages involving Black people are "profane."

I guess that's the best you can do, is it?

As explained already, I didn't put the word profane in quotes The references I provided show that teachings of the time did consider marriages of black peoples in the temple to be profane.

And, yes, I did a quick copy paste as I wasn't going to spend a lot of time responding to a CFR for someone who was choosing to be obtuse. We all know what the church taught about those of African descent. I considered just citing the Church's repudiation of those historical teachings.

[canard78]

Ultimately, if the Lord views homosexual behavior as a sin, then Russell is absolutely right. Introducing it into the temple would profane the temple. Someone who hopes that SSM will one day occur in the temple is indeed someone who hopes that the temple will be profaned. It's rather simple logic.

Would your statement hold true with the following edits:

"Ultimately, if the Lord views (inter-racial marriage) as a sin, then... introducing it into the temple would profane the temple. Someone who hopes that (inter-racial marriage) will one day occur in the temple is indeed someone who hopes that the temple will be profaned. It's rather simple logic.

[Russell C McGregor]

Would your statement hold true with the following edits:

"Ultimately, if the Lord views (inter-racial marriage) as a sin, then... introducing it into the temple would profane the temple. Someone who hopes that (inter-racial marriage) will one day occur in the temple is indeed someone who hopes that the temple will be profaned. It's rather simple logic.

But that's yet another counter-factual hypothetical.

The Church has never imposed racial criteria on people marrying in the Temple. Mixed-race couples have been married in the Temple ever since Temple marriages started being performed (at least in this dispensation.) Prior to the lifting of the Priesthood ban, when a marriage couldn't be performed in the Temple because one of the parties was not eligible to go there, bishops would routinely perform civil marriages.

Do you still maintain that that's just the same as "same sex marriage?"

Why am I not surprised?

[Russell C McGregor]

As explained already, I didn't put the word profane in quotes The references I provided show that teachings of the time did consider marriages of black peoples in the temple to be profane.

No. They did not.

 

And, yes, I did a quick copy paste as I wasn't going to spend a lot of time responding to a CFR for someone who was choosing to be obtuse.

Really?

 

We all know what the church taught about those of African descent. I considered just citing the Church's repudiation of those historical teachings.

If you think "we all know" that the Church taught that marrying a black person was morally reprehensible, then I'm afraid that not all of us do know that.

Some of us know different.

Some of us know better.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[mfbukowski]

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?

I don't know if you want to get into this or which way the rest of the thread has gone since I am picking up from this point, but I can see a jillion ways divine purposes would be fulfilled in such a situation.  First that couple is learning more about the differences and similarities in the sexes.

 

She has perhaps never before experienced living with another man, and he with another woman.

 

There is a whole new chapter in uniting with the other half of humanity and establishing the same kind of unity Christ has with the church, as bride and bridegroom.

 

There is a new set of complimentary halves in the universe to learn how to give and receive and become one.  Yin and yang and opposition in all things is further explored in wholly new ways!

 

Each receives a new opportunity to learn what we are all here to learn- unity in an "I-Thou" relationship as opposed to looking in a mirror at oneself in a different body.

 

And that is just a start.   Want more?

[mfbukowski]

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.

I don't think the fact that we have an open canon is an issue here.

 

The issue is whether or not it is a logical and consistent position to take

[canard78]

But that's yet another counter-factual hypothetical.

The Church has never imposed racial criteria on people marrying in the Temple. Mixed-race couples have been married in the Temple ever since Temple marriages started being performed (at least in this dispensation.) Prior to the lifting of the Priesthood ban, when a marriage couldn't be performed in the Temple because one of the parties was not eligible to go there, bishops would routinely perform civil marriages.

Do you still maintain that that's just the same as "same sex marriage?"

Why am I not surprised?

If mixed-race is described as follows, would you still maintain that no racial criteria is imposed:

"Repugnant"

"God's rule... has been endogamous"

"Contrary to church doctrine"

“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

[Stargazer]

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

 

Wait! What? CCRW banned?  What happened?  Did he misspell something important? 

[rockpond]

No. They did not.

Really?

If you think "we all know" that the Church taught that marrying a black person was morally reprehensible, then I'm afraid that not all of us do know that.

Some of us know different.

Some of us know better.

I never used the words morally reprehensible. I said profane and clarified which definition I was using. And if you don't think that the Brethren taught (in the past) that those of African descent were impure, unconsecrated with respect to receiving temple ordinances than I suppose you need to go back to all those quotes I provided.

In the end, I suppose this is a good derail for your thread since you've been unable to show that you weren't employing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[mfbukowski]

Wait! What? CCRW banned?  What happened?  Did he misspell something important? 

I would hope that could be reconsidered,   I have not followed what he did, but he was making significant progress in coming back to the church

[Russell C McGregor]

Wait! What? CCRW banned?  What happened?  Did he misspell something important?

Eh?

I've looked back through his posts. (Not all of them, of course, but the recent ones.) I don't see any red scrawls saying kind things like "You're outta here!" While he tweaked me a few times, I saw nothing I could call offensive; and, hand on heart, I haven't reported him to the mods (nor even thought about it.) So where on earth did that come from?

[Russell C McGregor]

If mixed-race is described as follows, would you still maintain that no racial criteria is imposed:

"Repugnant"

"God's rule... has been endogamous"

"Contrary to church doctrine"

First Presidency, 1947

Thank you Canard, I am well aware of the statements you shock jocks like to cherry-pick for dramatic effect.

But I wasn't talking about words, I was talking about deeds.

Surely you -- yes, even you -- should be able to tell the difference between the kinds of "repugnant" and "contrary to church doctrine" marriages that were performed by bishops (sometimes in homes, sometimes in chapels -- but even then, that was a blanket rule that applied to all civil marriages across the board at a particular time, and never only to specific racial combinations) and the kinds of "marriages" that bishops have never performed, and which are forbidden outright by the Church?

Or am I being far too optimistic? Is that distinction just too subtle for you?

[Stargazer]

Eh?

I've looked back through his posts. (Not all of them, of course, but the recent ones.) I don't see any red scrawls saying kind things like "You're outta here!" While he tweaked me a few times, I saw nothing I could call offensive; and, hand on heart, I haven't reported him to the mods (nor even thought about it.) So where on earth did that come from?

 

Yeah, that's what I thought, too.  He started out a bit rough, but was becoming a good contributor.  Sigh.