What happened to LDS apologist Doug Marshall?

[_Trevor]

bcspace's interminable one-line quibbling is not the way debates are allowed to proceed in any serious context, and his idea of what constitutes winning is, shall we say, his own very special view. He posts in the same way that boring, confused and obsessive people inflict their tedious talk (one cannot often call it argument) on others in bars and, if one is very unlucky, some forms of long-distance transport. Such people say to themselves as their victims finally make their escape "Yup. They all have to give up in the end. None of them can answer my arguments. I win every time" ...

You got it dead on, Chap. Thanks for saving me the future wasted time I might have put into this. It is a snipe hunt, not a debate. I'm done.

[_bcspace]

LDS doctrine is just as "broad". Alma 5:38-39 for example. Can you list any left wing policy that does not conflict with LDS doctrine?

Alma 5:38-39 is not about anti-Mormonism.

It is exactly that.

There is no point in holding an argument with you about issues concerning liberalism, conservatism, anti-Mormonism, and the like, if you allow this ridiculously broad leeway to define things as it suits you in the moment. I see that I have been invited to a snipe hunt, not an argument. Thanks, but no thanks.

Cop out.

Whatever he proposed, he was willing to campaign for a post-WWII Democrat, which means he was most likely not opposed to the redistribution of wealth through an aggressive, progressive tax.

Finally, an example. Is that what the gospel teaches about helping the poor?

The man was a liberal, and he was certainly not your brand of conservative.

Perhaps you'd better find out then, exactly what he was for. I really haven't said anything about conservatives, but considering the laundry list of the typical liberal, such are antiMormons indeed.

In a real debate, whether in a legislature or a debating club, one side gets to speak for a limited period then the other does. There may be further speeches, plus some contributions from the floor. Then it stops and there is a vote that tells us who won.

Unless one side abandons the debate.

bcspace's interminable one-line quibbling is not the way debates are allowed to proceed in any serious context, and his idea of what constitutes winning is, shall we say, his own very special view. He posts in the same way that boring, confused and obsessive people inflict their tedious talk (one cannot often call it argument) on others in bars and, if one is very unlucky, some forms of long-distance transport. Such people say to themselves as their victims finally make their escape "Yup. They all have to give up in the end. None of them can answer my arguments. I win every time" ...

Trevor is finally attempting to give an example albeit a pseudo one. He's not yet pinned down what Nibley believed about these issues and he's not yet shown how anything in the left wing "laundry list" is consistent with the gospel.

In fact, he's not even denied that the issues I mentioned (socialism, abortion, and gay marriage) are inconsistent with LDS doctrine. If he agrees, then there is nothing to argue.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm quite certain that I am more broad minded than any antiMormon here.

I am not and anti Mormon. But I see a lot more open mindedness in many of the critics here than I see in you. Frankly I find your position disgusting and shameful for any believing LDS to espouse.

Just because I have considered and don't accept antiMormon philosophy doesn't mean I am narrow minded. I have simply compared the platform and modus operandi of the democratic party to LDS doctrine and found them wanting.

Some parts perhaps. But there are parts of the republican platform that run coutner to LDS doctrine as well.

My prior SP and current one are the two of the finest Christians I know.

I have no doubt you percieve them to be that way.

Is is not just my perception. It is fact.

But it is one thing to be merely Christian and quite another to part of the body of Christ. It is also one thing to have false compassion and another to actually be a Christian.

No sireee. they are Christian through and through.

And what about our very own Robert Crockett. He is a liberal as well.

I don't know this RC, but being a political liberal automatically disqualifies him from being a believing LDS.

RC posts on this board. Not sure how you missed him. He is active LDS, a bishop, a strong defender of things LDS and politically a liberal. Ask him his thoughts on say immigration. Oh and it would seem on that topic the LDS Church is fairly liberal since they forth rightly allow the baptism of illegals in the US.

Anyway, while I am politically conservative members like you who equate being LDS in good standing to being politically conservatives make me puke. You are small minded and rather bigoted in my view.

I don't think I made that comparison. I simply said that being left wing was incompatible.

I think your position is that one cannot be a politically liberal and be LDS in good standing.

However, I do appreciate your black and white thinking that if one is not a liberal, one must be a conservative

.

Actually this is not my thinking at all. I think there are ranges.

So I assume you would have told President Faust and Marlin Jensen they are traitors to God, the LDS Church and to their country? What an idiot.

If they are still now, I would not hesitate to say it to their face. Perhaps not that strongly at first, but I would certainly point out how they are in conflict with LDS doctrine to start.

Well President Faust is dead but you can write Elder Jensen a letter. Why don't you please and post it here.

[_Chap]

In a real debate, whether in a legislature or a debating club, one side gets to speak for a limited period then the other does. There may be further speeches, plus some contributions from the floor. Then it stops and there is a vote that tells us who won.

Unless one side abandons the debate.

An excellently silly example of a bcspace one-line pseudo-answer.

Since, unlike a serious debate, there is no limit on the length of time on side can go on talking on the internet, the only way to win is to be the last one to post, however inane and irrelevant one's post is!

All you have to do is to bore your opponents to death, and you win!

[_bcspace]

Unless one side abandons the debate.

An excellently silly example of a bcspace one-line pseudo-answer.

Since, unlike a serious debate, there is no limit on the length of time on side can go on talking on the internet, the only way to win is to be the last one to post, however inane and irrelevant one's post is!

All you have to do is to bore your opponents to death, and you win!

In a recent post by Trevor (on this page in fact) he said "Thanks, but no thanks." and saw no point in holding an argument with me simply because he disagreed with one of my definitions. That my friend is abandonment and is what my statement was directed at.

However, Trevor seems to have changed his mind and did come back with an attempt which his more than can be said of you.

[_Trevor]

An excellently silly example of a bcspace one-line pseudo-answer.

Since, unlike a serious debate, there is no limit on the length of time on side can go on talking on the internet, the only way to win is to be the last one to post, however inane and irrelevant one's post is!

All you have to do is to bore your opponents to death, and you win!

And so I will treat bc with the seriousness his tactics deserve. I will seriously ignore his bigotry.

[_Tarski]

Should Harry Reid be excommunicated?

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

The church claims that it is not republican or democrat.


BCSpace should be excommunicated for trying to stipulate political positions as necessary for salvation, for publically promoting idiosyncratic doctrinal notions and foisting on us a litmus test for doctrine, and for declaring without authority that a public official in good standing should be excommunicated.

[_solomarineris]

The fact of the matter is that left-wing politics is completely incompatible with LDS doctrine so this is not suprising.

Yeah, like that pesky little thing called "free agency".

One can't have socialism without the removal of agency. Steeping oneself in sin often causes one to lose their agency as well as they become enslaved and can't get out.

I bet this guy is enslaved by 'ERA", "Pro Chocie", "Birth Control", "Planned Perahthood", "Democratic Party", "Global Warming" issues.
What a loser....
Likes of him will take this great Country down to hell with a handcart!

[_bcspace]

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

The church claims that it is not republican or democrat.

Did I say it should be done because of his party affiliation?

I bet this guy is enslaved by 'ERA", "Pro Chocie", "Birth Control", "Planned Perahthood", "Democratic Party", "Global Warming" issues.

Those issues do enslave. Thankfully, I am free of them.

What a loser....
Likes of him will take this great Country down to hell with a handcart!

Say rather that the false compassion of the democrats will enslave us all. Everyone's a victim (which is really just another way of justifying the taking of largesse)....lol

And so I will treat bc with the seriousness his tactics deserve. I will seriously ignore his bigotry.

Then the fact remains that left wing ideology is contrary to LDS doctrine. Who will defend it? No one. I wouldn't either.

I am not and anti Mormon. But I see a lot more open mindedness in many of the critics here than I see in you.

Then your definition of openmindedness is flawed. I am certainly willing to take everything into account and review prior judgements in the face of new information.

Frankly I find your position disgusting and shameful for any believing LDS to espouse.

I find it disgusting and shameful that anyone would think that it is okay for an LDS person to accept ideologies that are clearly in conflict with LDS doctrine.

Some parts perhaps. But there are parts of the republican platform that run coutner to LDS doctrine as well.

I'll bet you can't list one. But I think you're making a mistake by assuming me to be a member of any party.

I think your position is that one cannot be a politically liberal and be LDS in good standing.

That is incorrect. My position is that one cannot be a good democrat (or any kind of political liberal) and a good Mormon all at once. Good being defined as believing in and upholding the values of that particular organization. being in good standing does not show the condition of one's spirituality.

RC posts on this board. Not sure how you missed him. He is active LDS, a bishop, a strong defender of things LDS and politically a liberal.

Makes no difference to me.

Ask him his thoughts on say immigration. Oh and it would seem on that topic the LDS Church is fairly liberal since they forth rightly allow the baptism of illegals in the US.

I don't think so. Does the Church inquire about the legal status of a potential baptism?

Well President Faust is dead but you can write Elder Jensen a letter. Why don't you please and post it here.

Happy to. Has he taken any public positions while holding high Church office that conflict with LDS doctrine? List one, and I'll address it directly.

[_rcrocket]

Some parts perhaps. But there are parts of the republican platform that run coutner to LDS doctrine as well.

I'll bet you can't list one.

Does the Church inquire about the legal status of a potential baptism?

In 1975 the Church reversed its position on immigrations and baptisms in the United States and dropped from its list of questions of immigrants whether they were legal or not. One could not be baptized prior to 1975 if one were not a legal immigrant.

Today, the Church gives English lessons and financial aid to persons their bishops know full well are illegal immigrants. I am such a bishop. The bishop who shares my building and runs a Spanish ward is such a bishop. We are encouraged in leadership meetings to do so, and are told to not factor in immigration status into any equation. My stake several years ago called an illegal alien to be a branch president. The Church sends illegal aliens on missions within the United States. I have one such sister in my ward. The Church does so knowingly, carefully avoiding calling such persons on missions which would require them to cross international boundaries.

Does the Republican Party contain platform elements antithetical to the Church?

It was a Republican-dominated Congress that imposed test oaths on Mormons, disenfranchised first women voters in Utah, and then Mormon voters in Utah. It was a Republican Senator and Republican Senate lawyer who demanded that President J F Smith and others divulge elements of the endowment to a Senate committee presided over by a Republican. The Republican party called for the dismembership of the Church in the 1850s.

Examples of where the 2004 Republican Platform deviates from teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church.

The party supports the death penalty for crimes. The only example of an acceptable death penalty in the scriptures comes from a religious society whose leader is a priest or prophet, and only where there are at least two witnesses. The U.S. and various states put people to death on the strength of one witness.

The party supports jail time for incidental drug use. Nowhere do the scriptures support such a theory and, indeed, we read about agency instead. Sure, we read about people hurting each other and being made to pay, but not for drug abuse. Proverbs speaks repeatedly about the drunkard, but never about criminality.

The party's platform has a clause which would force government agencies to impose the Ten Commandments upon citizens. The scriptures, however, speak about agency in the context of commandment keeping.

The party's platform speaks out against "frivolous gun lawsuits." However, the Old Testament speaks a lot about property rights, being made to pay for one's negligence. If you negligently put a gun in somebody's hands, you should pay.

The party's platform says: "Total and complete destruction of terrorism is needed." However, the scriptures condone only defensive war, and I am not aware of a single example of a defensive war in the scriptures conducted entirely on foreign soil.

The party's platform says that it supports "faith-based welfare grants." This is tantamount to a national religion. Whose "faith" should the government get involved with? Joseph Smith was quite plain in his teachings about the agency of man and freedom from government compulsion. Why should my taxes be confiscated to give to a Episcopalian social system?


Having said all that, the Democrats themselves have serious problems with their platform and the scriptures. Abortion is the key example.

I am a libertarian, but I see the Republican party as the party of compulsion; the Democratic party as the party of libertines.