Another Apostate Rises Up to Destroy the Faith

[_Bob Loblaw]

Gawd the comment section is awful!

They can't all be bad. bcspace commented, after all.

[_bcspace]

The article asserts that their "doctrine" is compatible with the church's doctrine.

Crystal Young-Otterstrom asserts that yes.

If that's not true, then the brethren have approved a lie to be published in their paper.

Incorrect again. If the Brethren exercised full editorial control (they don't) and was published by the Church, then the DNews would be doctrine. You've already essentially agreed with this notion by stating:

bcspace will correctly tell us that a column in the paper is not doctrine

Say rather the Brethren believe the doctrine and that by living it and comparing one's life and beliefs with it, one will come to the truth of the matter.

[_bcspace]

Gawd the comment section is awful!

Yeah, there's way too much support for the Democratic party among those who call themselves LDS.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Incorrect again. If the Brethren exercised full editorial control (they don't) and was published by the Church, then the DNews would be doctrine.

That's a non-sequitur. As I said, my friend has explained that editorial content is reviewed by the board, which includes apostles. Do you honestly believe that the board would not have reviewed the editorial content? I don't.

Say rather the Brethren believe the doctrine and that by living it and comparing one's life and beliefs with it, one will come to the truth of the matter.

I do not believe the Deseret News is "doctrine" but I doubt very much that the board would have approved publication of the assertion that Democratic political positions are compatible with the church's doctrine, which you insist is a lie.

[_bcspace]

I think you operate under the erroneous assumption that the Church prevents people from speaking their mind.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I think you operate under the erroneous assumption that the Church prevents people from speaking their mind.

What makes you think that? I believe the Deseret News is careful to keep its editorial content in line with church positions and doctrines, which is why the board has editorial control over the opinion pages. You said earlier that you thought the church allowed it as part of an effort to show inclusiveness while at the same time expecting those who join the church to abandon the Democratic party and its positions. We both agree that the church/board allowed the publication but you believe it was a setup for naïve Democrats to feel they could be compatible with church doctrine.

[_Nightlion]

My heart almost skipped a beat to think the DN would print fairly. I have had the Salt Lake Tribune sitting on my Apocalrock
Story for many months. They refuse to return my material or talk to me as I venture in once in a while to ask and nobody seems to be there..............................

[_Bob Loblaw]

My heart almost skipped a beat to think the DN would print fairly. I have had the Salt Lake Tribune sitting on my Apocalrock
Story for many months. They refuse to return my material or talk to me as I venture in once in a while to ask and nobody seems to be there..............................

Did you write the Apocalrock story, or was it something the Trib did?

[_bcspace]

My heart almost skipped a beat to think the DN would print fairly

It does. It even allowed my strong comment to the contrary despite being heavily moderated.

I do not believe the Deseret News is "doctrine" but I doubt very much that the board would have approved publication of the assertion that Democratic political positions are compatible with the church's doctrine, which you insist is a lie.

I've yet to see an official statement from the Church to this effect including the "principles" (which aren't political positions) one.

[_brade]

My heart almost skipped a beat to think the DN would print fairly

It does. It even allowed my strong comment to the contrary despite being heavily moderated.

I do not believe the Deseret News is "doctrine" but I doubt very much that the board would have approved publication of the assertion that Democratic political positions are compatible with the church's doctrine, which you insist is a lie.

I've yet to see an official statement from the Church to this effect including the "principles" (which aren't political positions) one.

Hey guys, don't forget that bcspace thinks statements of the sort "The word 'guys' is in this post" implies that everything in this post is the word 'guys' (e.g. "Doctrine is proclaimed in official church publications" means, on bcspacian logic, that everything in official church publications is doctrine.)

The point is that it's hard to take bcspace seriously as long as he fails to grasp the stupidity of this error.