rcrocket wrote:You're a lawyer. You're admitted to the California bar.
What kind of ethics have you? Making personal attacks upon persons with real names -- all anonymously? Last time I looked, a judgment of defamation is grounds for discipline by the State Bar. Yet, your anonymous posts protect you!!!
Have some courage. Post with your real name.
Personal attacks on persons with real names is not always defamation. If it were, you should be more worried than me. Who have I defamed?
I actually have very strong ethics, thanks for asking. Just because you use your sort of real name doesn't mean you have any.
We've discussed to death the reasons why people don't reveal lots of personal information about themselves on-line. Your continued carping on the issue is tiresome and rock headed, in my opinion.
Easy to say if you just completely distort my argument.
My point is this: Before Moskha starts condemning BC's conservatism in the context of the Mormon flavor of Christianity, it would seem that Moshka would have to be a believing Mormon. Otherwise, the argument smacks of hypocrisy.
It would be akin to me, a libertarian, upbraiding a fascist for not paying his dues to his Social Democratic party. Such cheek; such hypocrisy. You have no right to upbraid BC for his/her commitment to a gospel you reject.
Easy to say if you just completely distort my argument.
My point is this: Before Moskha starts condemning BC's conservatism in the context of the Mormon flavor of Christianity, it would seem that Moshka would have to be a believing Mormon. Otherwise, the argument smacks of hypocrisy.
It would be akin to me, a libertarian, upbraiding a fascist for not paying his dues to his Social Democratic party. Such cheek; such hypocrisy. You have no right to upbraid BC for his/her commitment to a gospel you reject.
Moksha wasn't condemning BC's conservatism or his commitment to his professed beliefs. He was criticising the idea that, in order to be a member in good standing, one must adhere to a particular set of political opinions. Based on how you characterised Moksha's point, I would contend that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. (See, I just made a personal "slam" that wasn't defamation. Interesting, huh?)
I also stand by my characterisation of your argument based on a plain reading of your post. It's easy to cry "strawman! strawman!" and it doesn't fool anyone.
moksha wrote:You need to be a right-wing Conservative to be a Mormon?
At least that is the message I am getting from reading Bcspace's interpretation of what it takes to be a good Mormon. Personally, I think this is a mistake and a mistake that could cost the Church some members if it ever became an official mantra.
It won't ever become official mantra, neither will any of BC's other watered down, weird interpretations of scripture and Mormon doctrine.
BCs interpretation is Mormonism before it was watered down. There's a big push for legitimizing the morality of being a Democrat in the minds of many active LDS. I was even told once by a Bishop that the Church would not advertise for antiabortion rallies because the Church was not a political platform. Yet then again, I heard the same bishops read the Presidency statement to actively oppose same sex marriages.
More members usually wins out over specific doctrine and expanded knowledge. If the Church can make there statements more general and keep/attract more members that's the route they'll take. I still think that if you really accept the moral system of the left, it turns the values human beings have evolved for years upside down. No private property, no right to defend your land... I'm not even convinced that the Democrats have a logical working moral system. It seems to me all they can really do is say what's wrong with the status quo. But the truth is that's all you really have to do to win an election.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
moksha wrote:You need to be a right-wing Conservative to be a Mormon?
At least that is the message I am getting from reading Bcspace's interpretation of what it takes to be a good Mormon. Personally, I think this is a mistake and a mistake that could cost the Church some members if it ever became an official mantra.
It won't ever become official mantra, neither will any of BC's other watered down, weird interpretations of scripture and Mormon doctrine.
BCs interpretation is Mormonism before it was watered down. There's a big push for legitimizing the morality of being a Democrat in the minds of many active LDS. I was even told once by a Bishop that the Church would not advertise for antiabortion rallies because the Church was not a political platform. Yet then again, I heard the same bishops read the Presidency statement to actively oppose same sex marriages.
More members usually wins out over specific doctrine and expanded knowledge. If the Church can make there statements more general and keep/attract more members that's the route they'll take. I still think that if you really accept the moral system of the left, it turns the values human beings have evolved for years upside down. No private property, no right to defend your land... I'm not even convinced that the Democrats have a logical working moral system. It seems to me all they can really do is say what's wrong with the status quo. But the truth is that's all you really have to do to win an election.
The Church has repeatedly come out against abortion liberalization; a referendum before Roe v. Wade in Washington State in the early 1970s is the key example. Your bishop was just wrong and uninformed.
Misinformed then. He received those orders from higher up, somewhere from the Stake. I see your point. The baptismal interviews were very specific on cracking down on abortion. This refusal to annouce support for an antiabortion rally was the only time I saw Church leadership back away on the grounds that they didn't want to get into politics.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
You need to be a right-wing Conservative to be a Mormon?
At least that is the message I am getting from reading Bcspace's interpretation of what it takes to be a good Mormon. Personally, I think this is a mistake and a mistake that could cost the Church some members if it ever became an official mantra.
I never said that of course. What I did say was that leftwing ideology condradicts LDS doctrine and is in fact, antiMormon in scope.
So the question really is, can one be a good Mormon and not believe the doctrine? Of course not. Hence, it is impossible for a political liberal to be a good Mormon.
You need to be a right-wing Conservative to be a Mormon?
As a 12 year old would say, "well, duh." I don't see how this is a surprise to anyone who has spent any amount of time in the Mormon church. General Conference looks like a Republican Convention. The leadership dress like they're running for office as republicans. THe message from the pulpit is very conservative, and aside from the few differences in Biblical interpretation, Mormons agree with the religious right on almost every social and political issue.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks