What happened to LDS apologist Doug Marshall?

Post by **_Tarski** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:18 am

Trevor wrote:All you are showing here is how completely right-wing ideology has hijacked the LDS Church.

So much so that there is hardly much more left of it but the will to continue.

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:20 am

Tarski wrote:So much so that there is hardly much more left of it but the will to continue.

The will to survive, the will to grow, and the will to control. Those are the primary forces driving the LDS Church these days.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:23 am

Should Harry Reid be excommunicated?

Post haste. He has publically denounced the Church and it's positions.

If so, then why hasn't it happened yet?

I don't know. They have excommunicated for less. My guess is that they fear to alienate a portion of our membership and reduce conversions. The thinking has always been that being a member of and participating in Church, one will change over time. This does happen, but is not always the case. Ex'ing Harry Reid, imho, sends the proper message. It doesn't have to be done because he is a democrat, but simply because of the public positions he takes.

If not, then what do you have to say for your above paragraph?

Nothing new. I think it's obvious that one does not believe significant moral LDS doctrines if one is a political liberal. One is actually working against such morals in that case, making one an antiMormon.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:26 am

Well, Hugh Nibley obviously did not agree, and, whatever his faults, I'll trust his take on it. All you are showing here is how completely right-wing ideology has hijacked the LDS Church.

No such thing has happened. LDS doctrine simply is and happens to be diametrically opposed to left wing ideology. I am simply applying the doctrine and comming to the only logical conclusion.

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:29 am

bcspace wrote:I think it's obvious that one does not believe significant moral LDS doctrines if one is a political liberal.

I find it utterly astonishing to the point of beggaring belief that you would say this when Hugh Nibley, the grand old man of LDS apologetics, was one of the Church's most faithful and thoughtful liberals--going so far as to campaign door to door for candidates for the Democratic Party in Utah. Talk about a presumptuous, ignorant prat. You take the cake, bcspace. You really do.

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:31 am

And you understand that doctrine better than Nibley? Gag. Cough. BS.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:37 am

I think it's obvious that one does not believe significant moral LDS doctrines if one is a political liberal.

I find it utterly astonishing to the point of beggaring belief that you would say this when Hugh Nibley, the grand old man of LDS apologetics, was one of the Church's most faithful and thoughtful liberals

Perhaps you should state what beliefs of his make him a politcal liberal in today's terms and then we shall compare to LDS doctrine.

--going so far as to campaign door to door for candidates for the Democratic Party in Utah.

I personally could not tell you if he would qualify as a political liberal today, but I do know that many conservatives used to belong to that party and there were at one time conservative planks in that party. I think there are many elderly today who still believe in that party which no longer exists today.

Talk about a presumptuous, ignorant prat. You take the cake, bcspace. You really do.

I have simply taken the logical stance. Have you listed any left-wing ideological points that don't conflict with LDS doctrine? Helping the poor is not a point as both sides want that. What is the modus operandi?

And you understand that doctrine better than Nibley? Gag. Cough. BS.

Do you have any examples? Perhaps he merely disagreed with the Church on some points. That would make him less of a believer. But are any of those disagreements in the realm of the political left? Would Nibley sanction abortion as a method of birth control? Gay marriage?

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:44 am

bcspace wrote:Perhaps you should state what beliefs of his make him a politcal liberal in today's terms and then we shall compare to LDS doctrine.

He simply was a political liberal, you twit. I am not required to define his particular version for you. You are the one arguing that liberals can't be good Mormons. You're obviously wrong. Nibley's very existence as a committed liberal and diehard, faithful Mormon prove you wrong.

bcspace wrote:I personally could not tell you if he would qualify as a political liberal today, but I do know that many conservatives used to belong to that party and there were at one time conservative planks in that party. I think there are many elderly today who still believe in that party which no longer exists today.

Liberalism has not utterly transformed in a single generation. You can't suddenly switch to a narrower definition in a vain attempt to save your ridiculous position.

bcspace wrote:I have simply taken the logical stance. Have you listed any left-wing ideological points that don't conflict with LDS doctrine? Helping the poor is not a point as both sides want that. What is the modus operandi

You haven't laid down any clear stance for anyone to argue. All you have done is to proclaim your supposed "truth," and then challenged anyone to prove you wrong. I have given you a strong counter evidence. You are attempting to weasel around it. But you have no clear position that I have seen. Set it out and then we can argue it. If you make the claim, you need to back it up.

Post by **_Trevor** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:47 am

By the way, I'll give you another one: Eugene England.

Post by **_bcspace** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:10 am

Perhaps you should state what beliefs of his make him a politcal liberal in today's terms and then we shall compare to LDS doctrine.

He simply was a political liberal, you twit.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

I am not required to define his particular version for you.

Intellectual honesty requires you to back up your claims.

You are the one arguing that liberals can't be good Mormons. You're obviously wrong.

Yet I have listed some issues to show that they can't. I see you have not made any counter list or addressed the ones I gave.

Nibley's very existence as a committed liberal and diehard, faithful Mormon prove you wrong.

A political liberal in today's terms? If so, what makes him a faithful Mormon? Anyone can hold membership and a temple recommend. perhaps he was defending a church that did not exist? What is your rational here?

Liberalism has not utterly transformed in a single generation. You can't suddenly switch to a narrower definition in a vain attempt to save your ridiculous position.

But Nibley spans multiple generations and todays conservatives used to be called liberals.

You haven't laid down any clear stance for anyone to argue.

A political liberal equates to an antiMormon is not a clear stance?

All you have done is to proclaim your supposed "truth," and then challenged anyone to prove you wrong.

I have listed socialism, gay marriage, and abortion and others in other threads as I have not been shy about proclaiming this position from time to time (see Shades entry on me in his Guide To Mopologetics).

I have given you a strong counter evidence.

Where?

You are attempting to weasel around it. But you have no clear position that I have seen. Set it out and then we can argue it. If you make the claim, you need to back it up.

The ball is in your court. Ubnless of course you know nothing about Hugh Nibely or political liberalism or LDS doctrine. Educate me. I'm listening.

By the way, I'll give you another one: Eugene England.

I don't care who it is. I put my money where my mouth is. I suggest you do the same.