Take it or leave it. If you leave it, I'll just assume you agree.
As people walk away in boredom, bcspace tells the world triumphantly:
"I can go on talking longer than you. If I'm the last one to stop talking, I win!"
Simple debate logic. If you can't argue your side, the other side wins.
Your statement is absurd on its face. You assume that faithful members of the LDS Church must agree with every position the Church takes on every issue.
I did not say that. I said several times that the more one disbelieves, the less faithful one is.
You also assume, incorrectly, that every liberal must subscribe to a particular laundry list of causes.
Political parties and candidates have such laundry lists. I seem to recall mentioning a certain political party. Are the "causes" I listed not considered by most (if not all) left wing?
Finally, you construe anti-Mormonism so broadly as to include many people who know very little about Mormonism or don't even have it on their radar screen.
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?
Nibley was very tough on the growing disparity between haves and have-nots in the world. He considered it sinful for people to amass more wealth than they needed, and thought that they should put their excess to worthy, humanitarian use. This growing disparity between the mega-wealthy and the poor is a major theme in today's liberal rhetoric. It is entirely consistent with the gospel.
And conservative values. The difference is how does the left wing go about solving these problems? Do you have any examples that do not conflict with LDS doctrine? What were the ways Nibley proposed, if any? If what he proposed is consistent with LDS doctrine, he would in all likelyhood not be viewed as a political liberal today.
I guess your certainty was about as poorly based as your crappy non-argument.
When you provide some actual examples for your case, we might have something to argue about.