No True Scotsman And Faithful Latter-Day Saints

[Bernard Gui]

There are actions that God has declared sinful.

A person's race has not been proscribed by God as a sinful action.

There are no actions exclusive to black people that have been judged sinful.

This cannot be truthfully said about homosexual actions.

The only way to allow ssm in the temple would be to declare ss actions not sinful.

Restricting interracial marriages in the temple is not the same as not allowing ssm in the temple.

I recall many fervent prayers that God would lift the ban.

It seems presumptuous to pray God to make sin to be righteousness.

I don't understand the recent essay to be a "repudiation" of the Priesthood ban.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

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?

Possibly something was said over on the other board....I havent been paying enough attention here so am going by what has been expressed.

Edited May 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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

Not really. This thread is not about whether gay marriage if a logical/consistent possibility. This thread is about whether believing LDS gay marriage is possible at some future point makes you an unfaithful saint.

I would agree with Rockpond. I would say that someone could be both a faithful saint and also believe that LDS gay marriage could one day be possible, through revelation. Whether that person's view is logical or not is a whole other matter.

I say that as someone who has no need or desire to get Russel's endorsement of my faithfulness or otherwise.

[canard78]

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?

Even me? What do you mean by that? There's a clear implication there. What is it?

If a prophet of God declares something to be against the will and doctrine of God would doing so anyway be sinful?

As to your elicit marriage references... you'll have to be a bit more specific.

[jwhitlock]

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 answered this rather well. The Lord didn't view inter-racial marriage as a sin.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Russell answered this rather well. The Lord didn't view inter-racial marriage as a sin.

Stated without any sense of irony too. This might be a good chance to resolve the OP. Saints who wish for revelation granting SS sealings believe the Lord doesn't consider them profane or a sin. Neither You nor Pahoran have shown why all faithful members must hold such a view.

Edited May 3, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Senator]

Saints who wish for revelation granting SS sealings believe the Lord doesn't consider them profane or a sin.

I would be interested in hearing the argument of these saints. I would like to hear how, from the scriptural record of the past, as well as current doctrine/teachings, that they can believe that the Lord doesn't consider same sex relations a sin.

That's an incredible claim. I would like to hear it defended. Perhaps in another thread.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Senator

[Teancum]

What part of YES don't you understand?

Oh gee....sorry to just confirm your position. Would have been to tough to just say yes I agree......?

[Senator]

Oh gee....sorry to just confirm your position. Would have been to tough to just say yes I agree......?

 

I made 3 or 4 prior post confirming my position.

 

I was getting the feeling you were just trying to badger me.

[Brian 2.0]

I would be interested in hearing the argument of these saints. I would like to hear how, from the scriptural record of the past, as well as current doctrine/teachings, that they can believe that the Lord doesn't consider same sex relations a sin.

That's an incredible claim. I would like to hear it defended. Perhaps in another thread.

 

The only argument to be made is that the past prophets believed same sex relations were a sin and the wrote those feelings down in the scriptural record, but those were were not the will of the Lord.  

[Senator]

Putting astonishment aside....

 

I appreciate that concise response.

 

There really is no need for an entire thread to hash that idea out.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I would be interested in hearing the argument of these saints. I would like to hear how, from the scriptural record of the past, as well as current doctrine/teachings, that they can believe that the Lord doesn't consider same sex relations a sin.

That's an incredible claim. I would like to hear it defended. Perhaps in another thread.

Alma 32, Moroni 10.

Is this really more astonishing than the saints who believe evolution despite the scriptures and latter-day prophets?

[thesometimesaint]

Alma 32, Moroni 10.

Is this really more astonishing than the saints who believe evolution despite the scriptures and latter-day prophets?

 

Is this really more astonishing than the saints who believe that men are in space and have landed on the moon despite the scriptures and latter-day prophets?

[Teancum]

Russell answered this rather well. The Lord didn't view inter-racial marriage as a sin.

Then why didn't he tell Brigham His prophet?

[Teancum]

I made 3 or 4 prior post confirming my position.

 

I was getting the feeling you were just trying to badger me.

I apologize if it came across that way. Maybe I was being dense but I really was just trying to clarify.

[canard78]

Russell answered this rather well. The Lord didn't view inter-racial marriage as a sin.

He didn't? So why did his prophets teach that his was?

Or are you saying that if a prophet says that doing something is repugnant and against the teachings/doctrines of the church and I do it anyway then it is not a sin?

The Book of Mormon uses repugnant in this context:

Mosiah 29

" 36 Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated—telling them that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God."

Edited May 3, 2015 by canard78

[jwhitlock]

Stated without any sense of irony too. This might be a good chance to resolve the OP. Saints who wish for revelation granting SS sealings believe the Lord doesn't consider them profane or a sin. Neither You nor Pahoran have shown why all faithful members must hold such a view.

 

Making such a statement means you have to dismiss the fact that the Lord regards homosexual behavior as a sin, without regard to whether it's in a claimed marriage or not. That's been made clear, and yet you seem to think it's not important. However, as long as it is a sin, then performing a SS sealing would be a desecration of the temple.

 

Those "hoping" for such desecration have only tap danced around that particular sinful elephant.

 

So let's be blunt. A faithful member of the church does not hope for a redefinition of sin to validate his or her worldly viewpoint. Unlike poorly thought out attempts to compare SSM to the church's stand on blacks and the priesthood, there has never been any indication that this particular sinful behavior will ever be acceptable to the Lord. He has made that abundantly clear. Those who "hope" for a change are doing nothing more than desiring that the church change to conform to the ways of the world. That doesn't sound particularly faithful to me.

[jwhitlock]

He didn't? So why did his prophets teach that his was?

Or are you saying that if a prophet says that doing something is repugnant and against the teachings/doctrines of the church and I do it anyway then it is not a sin?

The Book of Mormon uses repugnant in this context:

Mosiah 29

" 36 Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated—telling them that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God."

 

Of course, you're missing (or willfully ignoring) the bigger point of this.

 

Did the church ever say that blacks couldn't be married to each other, or that married black couples couldn't be members of the church?

 

Did the church ever have a policy of disciplining or excommunicating an interracial couple who were members of the church just because they were married?

 

They didn't, as far as I know, even though some leaders of the church expressed opinions that were reflective of the cultural thinking of the times. Those opinions have been repudiated.

 

With all that in mind, perhaps you can tell us how you can validly compare the issue of SSM to black or interracial marriage, as far as policy of the church is concerned. Since church policy concerning SSM and homosexual behavior has always been consistent in that such behavior is viewed as a sin and that SSM is incompatible with the nature of the sealing covenants, those who have tried to draw a comparison with blacks to SSM have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

If someone has a hope (for the right reasons) that officially polygamy will come back some day, at least they have a historical leg to stand on. As a faithful member of the church, they could make an argument for that.

 

If someone has a hope that someday the church will declare fornication not sinful anymore, and allow those living together without marriage all of the blessings of the gospel, then that person is hoping for the church to change to conform to the world. That's not a faithful kind of hope. There is no historical justification that such a definition of sin will ever change.

 

That latter situation applies to the worldly practice of SSM.

[jwhitlock]

Then why didn't he tell Brigham His prophet?

 

The great thing about the church and the restored gospel is that the Lord doesn't keep anyone - including His prophets - on a tight string, controlling their every thought and statement.

 

He gives them something called agency. Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

That means that we all - including the prophets - get to think for ourselves. We even get to express our opinions. We get to make mistakes, even when we're in positions of leadership.

 

But eventually, the Lord brings everything back to where it should be and cleans everything up. Past quotes from leaders of the church, posted gleefully by some who want the church to change to conform to the world, when compared to the additional light and knowledge we have tell us not that the church is wrong, but that the Lord continues to guide His church and to correct the mistakes of the past. The work continues to move forward despite the rampant use of agency by its members.

 

So really, when we as Latter-day Saints who are trying to be faithful (and this hopefully will help you understand us better) listen to what the prophets are telling us, we understand that sometimes they have their opinions and that we need to use something called the Spirit to validate what's being said. We also understand that when there is overwhelming evidence that something is defined as a sin and that such definition has always been consistent, then it's not going to change. When someone in the church decides to embrace the philosophies of the world when they clearly contradict consistent historical and current policy of the church that provides no exception, that is going to conflict with that person's commitment to the church.

 

So there you have it. Enemies of the church love to point out the contradictions of people in the church in order to try to tear it down. In reality, the hand of the Lord has been powerfully evident in working with imperfect people in steering them down the right paths over time in this church. SSM has not ever been nor ever will be one of those correct paths.

[Teancum]

Making such a statement means you have to dismiss the fact that the Lord regards homosexual behavior as a sin, without regard to whether it's in a claimed marriage or not. That's been made clear, and yet you seem to think it's not important. However, as long as it is a sin, then performing a SS sealing would be a desecration of the temple.

 

Those "hoping" for such desecration have only tap danced around that particular sinful elephant.

 

So let's be blunt. A faithful member of the church does not hope for a redefinition of sin to validate his or her worldly viewpoint. Unlike poorly thought out attempts to compare SSM to the church's stand on blacks and the priesthood, there has never been any indication that this particular sinful behavior will ever be acceptable to the Lord. He has made that abundantly clear. Those who "hope" for a change are doing nothing more than desiring that the church change to conform to the ways of the world. That doesn't sound particularly faithful to me.

The Lord calls adultery a sin as well and commanded monogamy in the 1835 D&C yet a few years later Jospeh said God can command and revok and according to Joseph he had done just that regrading plural wives. Later the practice was suspended even though the LDS leaders including Wilford Woodruff said the church would never give it up.

So let's be blunt.....the LDS church has a history of change. While I do not think that same sex marriage will ever be accepted by the church it certainly COULD happen. And someone can personally hope for that and still be faithful. Just to you and Russell know....

[Teancum]

The great thing about the church and the restored gospel is that the Lord doesn't keep anyone - including His prophets - on a tight string, controlling their every thought and statement.

He gives them something called agency. Perhaps you've heard of it.

That means that we all - including the prophets - get to think for ourselves. We even get to express our opinions. We get to make mistakes, even when we're in positions of leadership.

But eventually, the Lord brings everything back to where it should be and cleans everything up. Past quotes from leaders of the church, posted gleefully by some who want the church to change to conform to the world, when compared to the additional light and knowledge we have tell us not that the church is wrong, but that the Lord continues to guide His church and to correct the mistakes of the past. The work continues to move forward despite the rampant use of agency by its members.

So really, when we as Latter-day Saints who are trying to be faithful (and this hopefully will help you understand us better) listen to what the prophets are telling us, we understand that sometimes they have their opinions and that we need to use something called the Spirit to validate what's being said. We also understand that when there is overwhelming evidence that something is defined as a sin and that such definition has always been consistent, then it's not going to change. When someone in the church decides to embrace the philosophies of the world when they clearly contradict consistent historical and current policy of the church that provides no exception, that is going to conflict with that person's commitment to the church.

So there you have it. Enemies of the church love to point out the contradictions of people in the church in order to try to tear it down. In reality, the hand of the Lord has been powerfully evident in working with imperfect people in steering them down the right paths over time in this church. SSM has not ever been nor ever will be one of those correct paths.

First let's set the record straight. I am LDS. Even though I am now a filthy apostate I spent my entire adult life as faithful as you or any other defender in this board and I was a defender at one point as well. So guess what?....I know how you think and operate.

And guess what else.. And let's be blunt again since you see me you like that....all you are doing is back peddling from something you don't like. If an LDS apologist likes something they argue it is God's word through his prophets. Kind of like the homosexual discussion on this thread. When an apologist does not like something...,well like Brigham Young's comments about interracial sex....then it is just his opinion. It is a pretty convenient way to defend something. I know. I used to do it too.

Oh and once again I agree with you on the SSM issue.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Teancum

[thesometimesaint]

The Lord calls adultery a sin as well and commanded monogamy in the 1835 D&C yet a few years later Jospeh said God can command and revok and according to Joseph he had done just that regrading plural wives. Later the practice was suspended even though the LDS leaders including Wilford Woodruff said the church would never give it up.

So let's be blunt.....the LDS church has a history of change. While I do not think that same sex marriage will ever be accepted by the church it certainly COULD happen. And someone can personally hope for that and still be faithful. Just to you and Russell know....

 

 

The Book of Mormon allows for polygamy at God's command. First published in 1829.

[Teancum]

The Book of Mormon allows for polygamy at God's command. First published in 1829.

Yes the good old get out of jail free card of Jacob 2...

Then why the need for the article on marriage in the 1835 D&C?

[Damien the Leper]

First let's set the record straight. I am LDS. Even though I am now a filthy apostate I spent my entire adult life as faithful as you or any other defender in this board and I was a defender at one point as well. So gives what....I know how you think and operate.

And guess what.. And let's be blunt again since you see m to like that....all you are doing is back peddling from something you don't like. If an LDS apologist likes something they argue it is God's word through his prophets. Kind of like the homosexual discussion on this thread. When an apologist does not like something...,well like Brigham Young's comments about interracial sex....then it is just his opinion. It is a pretty convenient way to defend something. I know. I used to do it too.

Oh and once again I agree with you on the SSM issue.

Employing this rhetoric loved by apologists demonstrates how weak their position is. A prophet is only speaking as prophet so long as they agree with him. Rather juvenile and naive, really. Edited May 3, 2015 by Valentinus

[thesometimesaint]

Yes the good old get out of jail free card of Jacob 2...

Then why the need for the article on marriage in the 1835 D&C?

 

I don't know, but if I were to hazard a guess it could have been a topic of discussion. Much like we still endlessly talk about it today. For any member of the Church born after October 6, 1890 it is a non-issue. After very close to 125 years it is time to move on.