Who is the Apostate Here?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Trevor
God
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Trevor »

Well, I am happy to be apostate from an apostate organization. The financial history of Mormonism in the late 20th and early 21st century would make Jesus of Nazareth ashamed. There is no shame in being apostate from an apostate organization.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

User avatar
Lucretia MacEvil
God
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:01 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Lucretia MacEvil »

Darth J wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:The mere existence of this thread supports my opinion that the church is legalistic, rigid and controlling (although a bit fuzzy on its doctrine). Would either of you like to learn about a church that doesn't fling around accusations of apostacy? No? I didn't think so. :)


Yeah, you can't pin down "official church doctrine," but at the same time the Church and TBM's both have an almost 17th century Salem fetish about "apostates," and demand rigid conformity (see the David Bednar talk in my post in the most despised church leader thread) to Mormon cultural norms.

Lucretia, this is exactly why I pour my heart out to God that He will make Droopy, BCSpace, and Will Schryver the First Presidency of Mormons on the internet. I invite you to join me in my prayers---whatever "God" or "prayer" may mean to you.


I know what you mean about Bednar and that talk ... but just think how lucky that girl was to get dumped by that pri ... umm, RM. I envision her way better off now! Sure, I'll pray for your Triad of Evil to be called of God to be FP or Ms on the I.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Oh, and Droopy, I posted this for the great arbiter of church doctrine, BCSpace (where church doctrine is whatever I say it is, and even then is only true if I say it is), but it pertains to you, too, with your apostate obsessions:

The LDS Church, through a high-ranking leader, is making its strongest public statement to date about the need for political diversity among members, while expressing concerns the Republican Party is becoming the "church party."

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.

A former attorney and lifelong Democrat, Jensen was careful in his comments not to suggest an official LDS preference for any political party but to maintain the church's traditional stand of partisan neutrality.

The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third tier in LDS Church leadership after the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the governing First Presidency.

Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members.

The Tribune's inquiry came on the heels of two significant developments: Utah Democrats' unprecedented failure to field a candidate in a congressional race and a statement from the LDS First Presidency -- read over pulpits in January -- urging members to seek elective office.

In an hourlong interview at the church's worldwide headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City arranged and overseen by LDS media-relations director Mike Otterson, Jensen discussed leaders' views about the seeming demise of two-party politics among members. Among the concerns he aired:

-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.

-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.

-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."

[Quoted here: http://bobaagard.blogspot.com/2008/10/e ... g-lds.html

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

You have incessantly opposed Church policy in public by claiming that only people who agree with your political views---which you will never, ever, ever shut the f*** up about---are fit and worthy to be real Mormons.


CFR

Because its quite clear to me at this point that you have very little substantive idea what the church actually teaches, or the implications of those teachings, at all, and as the above statement makes clear, have an equally thin grasp of what I have claimed and argued here and at MAD regarding this issue, there is probably very little chance of you dealing with what I have said in a substantive or intellectually honest manner.

For the record, yet again, all I have ever claimed is that the ideology and beliefs of the present Democratic party are, for the most part, wholly incompatible with Church teachings, philosophy and doctrine across a range of issues and subjects, from a social, economic, and philosophical perspective.

I have not said ever, that anyone who does not agree with my personal political views are not fit and worthy to be LDS. Nor have I ever, under any circumstances, claimed that being a Democrat made on unfit and unworthy to be Mormon. Self delusion and double think being rife within the human condition, one can maintain a connection to an institution while ignoring or avoiding the intellectual or logical implications of that association.

However, I will not hesitate to say again as well that one who is not simply a Democrat, but knowingly and consciously supports the Democratic party's ideology, general policy prescriptions and overall world view, are then knowingly participating in and supporting a political institution who's central principles, beliefs and ideological commitments are, for the most part, hostile to and incompatible with gospel teachings.

This has nothing whatever to do with the Church's public position on the world of general politics, which is one of general (note the word here) neutrality. This does not, and, according to other gospel doctrines, cannot dissuade or restrict me or anyone else from taking a principled stand on political issues that have gospel application.

I know there are person's here who desperately want this to be the case because as committed leftists, they feel there toes being squished by a number of Church teachings and doctrines and who wish to keep one foot in Zion while keeping the other firmly planted in Babylon, unwilling to let go of the world and its charms; the consuming adolescent desire to mold the world by force in one's own image and the sense of smug, inherent moral superiority that comes with holding the correct political views and knowing they are beyond any principled disagreement.

So be it.

(Snip self indulgent raving...)
Since I don't belong to any of those philosophies, I don't have to justify it.


I know what philosophy you belong to. You belong to the philosophy of Scratchism. This is the philosophy of Korihor mixed with the intellectual honesty of Michael Moore crossed with the intellectual sophistication of Kevin Graham.

People who do subscribe to any of those philosophies are the ones who must justify it, but to God, not to you. My first mission companion was from Bergamo, Italy, and was an active member of the communist party. He still is, and is very active in church there. How does he justify it? It's none of my business, nor of yours.


Your missionary companion is a supporter of a ideology that utterly denies free agency, the existence of God, any degree of human or civil rights to citizens under its political rule, and which exterminated over 100 million human beings during the last century, while raping and scarring the lives of many millions more.

He cannot justify his political ideology, nor can you, which is why you will never dare to do it. This is nothing but pure polemical masturbation on your part, and you know it perfectly well.

The Church has made it clear that it doesn't take sides in politics.


But its members can, and according to the modern prophets, not the least of which is Spencer W. Kimball, they must.


You are apostate by contradicting church policy and demanding that some platforms cannot be part of a church member's political beliefs.


You are a bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games and avoiding logical argument because you have no argument. The only reason you are debating me at all is because your virulent hatred of the Church drives you to find a point of contention and bore into it.

The Church says it does not oppose any political beliefs and that its members come from many political points of view.


And you are now exposed as a flat footed liar. The Church has never made any such statement. The one grain of truth here is that members come from various political backgrounds. Beyond that, all the Church has ever stated is that it is neutral - now, pay attention class - neutral on matters of party politics.

This has nothing to do logically or conceptually with either the Church or its members taking principled stands on political issues or ideological concepts.

Indeed, go to the Church newsroom page and, what do we see? That's right, a total of five divisive political issues upon which conservatives and leftists are at opposite poles. The Church makes clear statements and takes clear positions on each issue, but never mentions the Democratic or Republican party.

Guess what?

I CAN.

I don't f*****g care about politics, Droopy. I only care when the government is getting involved in my life. Then my politics is getting them out of my life.


I'll leave the logical incoherence of this statement for the night owls.
Last edited by Droopy on Tue May 18, 2010 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Nightlion
World's Top Zion Scientist
Posts: 9897
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Nightlion »

Droopy wrote:Droopy or Trevor?

As I accept all the teachings, commandments and principles of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the historicity and divinity of the Book of Mormon, the authenticity of the prophetic mission and calling of Joseph Smith, and uphold as prophets, seers and revelators, the Brethren, it would seem logically contradictory to term me an apostate.


The Lord considers you apostate, Droopy. A tare. You sustain those who have driven the gospel into the wilderness. Repent.

D&C 86: 3
3 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.


Latter-day tares are those who persecute the saints. You persecute the saints by accepting the LDS gospel of pride. Thereby you persecute the meek and drive them from among you. Why are all Mormons ashamed to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ with full purpose of heart that he might heal them. Because you are Gentiles and the Gentiles seek the things of this world.

Matthew 6:31-32
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.


See the difference Droopy? Did you ever divorce yourself utterly from the world to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness? Or did you seek assimilation with the world, a mission, an education, a career, marriage first, service. Merit badges. Ya, know. That is all tare stuff. Apostate bait that prevented you from faith unto salvation. This is a test ya know.

D&C 88: 94
94 And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles; her bands are made strong, no man can loose them; therefore, she is ready to be burned. And he shall sound his trump both long and loud, and all nations shall hear it.



You and your entire tribe of tares REFUSE to accept the gospel and by deceit profess another gospel which is false. The Lord considers you a pollution upon the Holy Land.

Mormon 8:38
38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?


You realize that nobody presently active in the LDS Church today has taken upon them the name of Jesus Christ and been truly visited of God and wrought upon and cleansed by the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. That is the standard.
Your church is in a state of apostasy. The day of the Gentiles is over. Sorry.........you only have to look forward to desolation, scourges and being tied into bundles ready to be burned.

You must ignore my witness as you have trampled upon the truth all your life. Rationalizing that you are except because nobody else was getting it right will not fly, it is rebellion and apostasy to know and not do according to that which is written.

D&C 103: 14
14 Nevertheless, if they pollute their inheritances they shall be thrown down; for I will not spare them if they pollute their inheritances.


D&C 84: 59
59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:The mere existence of this thread supports my opinion that the church is legalistic, rigid and controlling (although a bit fuzzy on its doctrine). Would either of you like to learn about a church that doesn't fling around accusations of apostacy? No? I didn't think so. :)



No...uh...Lucretia, that's the Democratic party and most of its national institutional representatives, not the Church, and unlike the Church, they have power to control, regulate and dictate the course and nature of my life.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

Darth J wrote:Oh, and Droopy, I posted this for the great arbiter of church doctrine, BCSpace (where church doctrine is whatever I say it is, and even then is only true if I say it is), but it pertains to you, too, with your apostate obsessions:

The LDS Church, through a high-ranking leader, is making its strongest public statement to date about the need for political diversity among members, while expressing concerns the Republican Party is becoming the "church party."

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.

A former attorney and lifelong Democrat, Jensen was careful in his comments not to suggest an official LDS preference for any political party but to maintain the church's traditional stand of partisan neutrality.

The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third tier in LDS Church leadership after the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the governing First Presidency.

Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members.

The Tribune's inquiry came on the heels of two significant developments: Utah Democrats' unprecedented failure to field a candidate in a congressional race and a statement from the LDS First Presidency -- read over pulpits in January -- urging members to seek elective office.

In an hourlong interview at the church's worldwide headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City arranged and overseen by LDS media-relations director Mike Otterson, Jensen discussed leaders' views about the seeming demise of two-party politics among members. Among the concerns he aired:

-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.

-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.

-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."

[Quoted here: http://bobaagard.blogspot.com/2008/10/e ... g-lds.html



There is a great deal one could say about the above, but the most obvious is that the Church has made no statements that come anywhere near to Jensen's, nor is this coming from the First Presidency and the Twelve, which means it is neither binding upon me nor anyone else and does not represent the Church as an institution.

The one odd thing about his statements, no disrespect to Elder Jensen, is the the apparent implication that LDS have traditionally leaned toward the Republican party for any other reason than matters of principle; that is, the Democratic party, because of its guiding ideology and the policies derived from it, are just not harmonizable with Church doctrine and philosophy.

I don't understand what Jensen thinks complaining about it is going to accomplish, unless he thinks LDS Republicans are suddenly going to go out and become Democrats "just to make it fair".

This simply isn't going to happen. In fact, if the Libertarian party would ever get serious about social issues and the importance of religion and culture in a free society, I think a great many LDS would abandon the Republican party in a heartbeat.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

You're such a doofus, Droop. The man was from a wealthy family.


Utterly irrelevant. Many of the most extreme of the New Leftists of the sixties were children of privilege, including the Weathermen.

And, I bet the man knew far more about the ways of the world than you'll ever hope to. You just don't like his conclusions.


Nibley was utterly clueless regarding even the most rudimentary aspects of free market economics, political economy, or economic history.

Indeed, some of Nibley's statements were so intemperate (some I've read lately), that they actually raise the hair on the back of one's neck. A few, very few, but a few things I've read of his make me think he may have been listening to people like Chomski.

I have no explanation for it other than double think and a aggressive compartmentalization of one body of ideas from another in order to preserve both.

He was a Lefty because he believed this was more consistent with the Gospel. Whereas you, relying on authorities who tell you which political position is the "only true" one to have, simply model your opinions accordingly.


Your predigested, formatted answers and conception of how I have developed my philosophy (or why Nibley developed his) and from whence it comes are just a fine and dandy exhibit of precisely and exactly what "the Left" represents and what happens to it when it is called out and taken to task.

I see no great depth here. I'd like to. I want to be dazzled by your depth. But frankly your game is up. Someone with real knowledge of Con law has just called your bluff. You flunked.


I very much doubt he's ever actually studied the Constitution at all. He's a poseur, just like most here.

The con quiz is just a trap, and I'm not going into it.

I've been here too long for that.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Droopy wrote:
You have incessantly opposed Church policy in public by claiming that only people who agree with your political views---which you will never, ever, ever shut the f*** up about---are fit and worthy to be real Mormons.

CFR


This thread.

Because its quite clear to me at this point that you have very little substantive idea what the church actually teaches, or the implications of those teachings, at all, and as the above statement makes clear, have an equally thin grasp of what I have claimed and argued here and at MAD regarding this issue, there is probably very little chance of you dealing with what I have said in a substantive or intellectually honest manner.


We'll never know, because you never actually talk about Mormonism at all. Just what you heard on talk radio, and that you claim to believe "all of the Church's teachings" without ever saying anything about them unless you can make an allusion to your political beliefs. (That would be an interesting discussion. All of the Church's teachings?)

For the record, yet again, all I have ever claimed is that the ideology and beliefs of the present Democratic party are, for the most part, wholly incompatible with Church teachings, philosophy and doctrine across a range of issues and subjects, from a social, economic, and philosophcal perspective.

I have not said ever, that anyone who does not agree with my personal political views are not fit and worthy to be LDS. Nor have I ever, under any circumstances, claimed that being a Democrat made on unfit and unworthy to be Mormon. Self delusion and double think being rife within the human condition, one can maintain a connection to an institution while ignoring or avoiding the intellectual or logical implications of that association.


This is a distinction without a difference.

"Self delusion and double think being rife within the human condition, one can maintain a connection to an institution while ignoring or avoiding the intellectual or logical implications of that association." That's an interesting commentary on being a member of the LDS Church.

However, I will not hesitate to say again as well that one who is not simply a Democrat, but knowingly and consciously supports the Democratic party's ideology, general policy prescriptions and overall world view, are then knowingly participating in and supporting an political institution who's central principles, beliefs and ideological commitments are hostile to and incompatible with gospel teachings.

This has nothing whatever to do with the Church's public position on the world of general politics, which is one of general (note the word here) neutrality. This does not, and, according to other gospel doctrines, cannot dissuade or restrict me or anyone else from taking a principled stand on political issues that have gospel application.

I know there are person's here who desperately want this to be the case because as committed leftists, they feel there toes being squished by a number of Church teachings and doctrines and who wish to keep one foot in Zion while keeping the other firmly planted in Babylon, unwilling to let go of the world and its charms; the consuming adolescent desire to mold the world by force in one's own image and the sense of smug, inherent moral superiority that comes with holding the correct political views and knowing they are beyond any principled disagreement.

So be it.


What you did is listed a bunch of organizations to which members of the Church cannot belong. The Church said in its public statement that it does not oppose any political platforms.

(Snip self indulgent raving...)


Oh, you won't be posting any more?

I know what philosophy you belong to. You belong to the philosophy of Scratchism. This is the philosophy of Korihor mixed with the intellectual honesty of Michael Moore crossed with the intellectual sophistication of Kevin Graham.


Yes, Droopy. Put labels on everyone and compare them to someone else. That's what sophisticated, erudite people do.

Your missionary companion is a supporter of a ideology that utterly denies free agency, the existence of God, any degree of human or civil rights to citizens under its political rule, and which exterminated over 100 million human beings during the last century, while raping and scarring the lives of many millions more.

He cannot justify his political ideology, nor can you, which is why you will never dare to do it. This is nothing but pure polemical masturbation on your part, and you know it perfectly well.


I am not purporting to justify communism. But when you say that he cannot justify his political ideology, you mean justify it to you. That's why people don't like Mormons, Droopy. They're judgmental of everyone, and extremely judgmental of their own.

The Church has made it clear that it doesn't take sides in politics. But its members can, and according to the modern prophets, not the least of which is Spencer W. Kimball, they must.


But they don't all take the same side, and the Church does not require them to do so. And however you choose to explain it away, BYU had Harry Reid speak there. And the Church hasn't thrown him under the bus as you would. The only voice I hate the sound of more than Harry Reid's is Barrack Obama's, but it is irrelevant to Reid's membership in the Church. That is the Church's position, and you are in effect saying that the Church is wrong.

You are a bottom feeding parasitical legalist playing law school word games and avoiding logical argument because you have no argument. The only reason you are debating me at all is because your virulent hatred of the Church drives you to find a point of contention and bore into it.


What is a "legalist," and what evidence do you have from my posts anywhere to prove that I am whatever you think that means? What kind of word games did they teach me in law school, Droopy? Can you give me an example? I mean like an actual, verifiable fact, not more stereotyping.

You're aware that in court cases where you don't like one side, there's a lawyer on the other side, right? One who is probably advocating the position you prefer. Since AM radio has taught you that case law is evil, is case law invalid in, say, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale? Is Michael McConnel, who I know, who helped draft the petitioner's brief in that case, and who is now a 10th Circuit judge, a radical leftist with a liberal agenda simply because he is a lawyer who follows case law? Case law being the type of jurisprudence on which the Constitution is based?

And I do not conflate you with the Church, so I am not motivated by "virulent hatred of the Church." You never even say anything about the Church except that you claim to believe in it and that you get to decide who is a worthy Mormon based on criteria that the Church has rejected. So we'll never know what, if anything, you actually know about controversial issues in Mormonism. You know, the issues that the boards you're on are supposed to be discussing.

But we do know from your idiotic belief that case law is unconstitutional is that you definitely have no idea what you're talking about when you hold forth on Cleon Skousen-esque homilies about the Constitution.

Maybe you can go tell some doctors that they don't know anything about human anatomy, while you're at it.

The Church says it does not oppose any political beliefs and that its members come from many political points of view.

And you are now exposed as a flat footed liar. The Church has never made any such statement.


Yes, the Church did say that, in its statement on political neutrality I cited earlier, about not opposing any political platforms.

Platform: a public statement of the principles, objectives, and policy of a political party, esp. as put forth by the representatives of the party in a convention to nominate candidates for an election; a set of principles; plan.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/platform


The one grain of truth here is that members come from various political backgrounds. Beyond that, all the Church has ever stated is that it is neutral - now, pay attention class - neutral on matters of party politics.


This is another distinction without a difference.

This has nothing to do logically or conceptually with either the Church or its members taking principled stands on political issues or ideological concepts.


Bumper sticker slogans are not principled stands (I'm referring to you specifically). But that is not the issue in your own OP, anyway. You are taking it upon yourself to decide who passes the political litmus test to be a good Mormon, and that is contrary to church policy.

Indeed, go to the Church newsroom page and, what do we see? That's right, a total of five divisive political issues upon which conservatives and leftists are at opposite poles. The Church makes clear statements and takes clear positions on each issue, but never mentions the Democratic or Republican party.


It isn't that simple. There are conservatives who are in favor of same-sex marriage, for example. And there are moderates and liberals who are ambivalent about it. You are just dividing everyone into two Manichean camps because the world is easier to understand that way. Republican/Democrat and conservative/liberal are not equivalent, either, but your comment is suggesting that it is. For or against same-sex marriage is not an issue that applies to some all-encompassing political platform. This is true with the other issues, as well.

Of course, a real libertarian would be more persuaded by the argument of "I want to get married in my country, not your church," but that is a dead end because we already know that you alone get to define everything as far as what other people's political beliefs are. And define, and define, and define. And talk about absolutely nothing else, ever.

Guess what?

I CAN.


But you very much appear to be incapable of doing anything else.

I don't f*****g care about politics, Droopy. I only care when the government is getting involved in my life. Then my politics is getting them out of my life.

I'll leave the logical incoherence of this statement for the night owls.


There is nothing either logical or illogical about this statement, because I didn't state a proposition and did not propose an argument. I stated a personal value judgment.

The reason it seems incoherent to you is because, as your posts here and on MADB make abundantly clear, you are incapable of framing or discussing anything at all, especially religion, unless in terms of what you think conservatism means versus what you think liberalism means.

Since you are not willing to take the Constitution quiz, and thereby put up or shut up, maybe you could prove me wrong on the one-track mind thing at least by getting on another thread here and talking about some controversy about Mormonism without discussing politics.
Last edited by Darth J on Tue May 18, 2010 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Droopy wrote:
I very much doubt he's ever actually studied the Constitution at all. He's a poseur, just like most here.

The con quiz is just a trap, and I'm not going into it.

I've been here too long for that.


Sure, Droopy. What's the difference between vertical stare decisis and horizontal stare decisis?

What's the difference between procedural due process and substantive due process?

When does a state rule of evidence become substantive law in an Article III diversity case?

When does legislative action violate separation of powers if it abridges a judicially-created remedy?

I know. You won't answer because you're too smart.

When I was in junior high, there was this kid who kept talking about how good he was at karate. One day, someone called him out and said let's fight. And the kid who always talked about how good he was at karate said he didn't want to fight because he didn't want to get his clothes dirty.

You remind me of that kid. I'm just a poseur who's never studied the Constitution. But when you get a chance to prove me wrong and yourself right, it's a trap.

Sure, Droopy. Everyone here believes that, too.

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Droopy wrote:There is a great deal one could say about the above, but the most obvious is that the Church has made no statements that come anywhere near to Jensen's, nor is this coming from the First Presidency and the Twelve, which means it is neither binding upon me nor anyone else and does not represent the Church as an institution.

The one odd thing about his statements, no disrespect to Elder Jensen, is the the apparent implication that LDS have traditionally leaned toward the Republican party for any other reason than matters of principle; that is, the Democratic party, because of its guiding ideology and the policies derived from it, are just not harmonizable with Church doctrine and philosophy.

I don't understand what Jensen thinks complaining about it is going to accomplish, unless he thinks LDS Republicans are suddenly going to go out and become Democrats "just to make it fair".

This simply isn't going to happen. In fact, if the Libertarian party would ever get serious about social issues and the importance of religion and culture in a free society, I think a great many LDS would abandon the Republican party in a heartbeat.


Yeah, he doesn't speak for the Church as an institution, Droopy.

"Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members."

You are completely incapable of conceptualizing anything except in terms of your idea of conservative against your idea of liberal.

If I do have any virulent hate for the Church, it is best expressed in my hope that you will continue to be an example on the internet of what Mormons are like.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by bcspace »

You have incessantly opposed Church policy in public by claiming that only people who agree with your political views---which you will never, ever, ever shut the f*** up about---are fit and worthy to be real Mormons.


Non sequitur. The Church itself may not be political, but members who are politically liberal are in defiance of the Church and it's doctrines by definition. Proclaiming political liberalism as contrary to the Gospel and worthy of excommunication does not involve the Church in politics but rather is the logical conclusion of the doctrine. Some people are not afraid go all the way with doctrinal implications and in so doing, one keeps 1 Cor 6:2 and is not in conflict with any doctrine or policy. See also Romans 1:32.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

User avatar
Nightlion
World's Top Zion Scientist
Posts: 9897
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Nightlion »

Please fail not to note that Droopy is ignoring Nightlion's (my) sensational accusations of the Lord's condign judgment.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

bcspace wrote:
You have incessantly opposed Church policy in public by claiming that only people who agree with your political views---which you will never, ever, ever shut the f*** up about---are fit and worthy to be real Mormons.


Non sequitur. The Church itself may not be political, but members who are politically liberal are in defiance of the Church and it's doctrines by definition. Proclaiming political liberalism as contrary to the Gospel and worthy of excommunication does not involve the Church in politics but rather is the logical conclusion of the doctrine. Some people are not afraid go all the way with doctrinal implications and in so doing, one keeps 1 Cor 6:2 and is not in conflict with any doctrine or policy. See also Romans 1:32.


That's why Harry Reid got excommunicated instead of invited to speak at BYU, right, BC?

I'm sorry, but your picking and choosing which of the Church's teachings appeal to you---which is contrary to "official church doctrine"---disqualifies you from trying to be the defender of the Church.

And your fetish with one of the Church's press releases, which does not meet its own definition of official doctrine, is not consistent with your ignoring a Seventy on the Church's public relations committee who was specifically authorized by the Church to address this issue.

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Nightlion wrote:Please fail not to note that Droopy is ignoring Nightlion's (my) sensational accusations of the Lord's condign judgment.


If I ever get any faith back in Joseph Smith, you might convert me to your side, Nightlion.

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

CFR


This thread.


Droopy:

Because its quite clear to me at this point that you have very little substantive idea what the church actually teaches, or the implications of those teachings, at all, and as the above statement makes clear, have an equally thin grasp of what I have claimed and argued here and at MAD regarding this issue, there is probably very little chance of you dealing with what I have said in a substantive or intellectually honest manner.


That's a statement about you, not about Mormon leftists or the relation of the Church to the Democratic party.


We'll never know, because you never actually talk about Mormonism at all.


Yes I do. I'm just in a phase where I like to discuss and debate politics and their relation to the gospel. Frankly, after many, many years of debating and discussing things with anti-Mormons, I grew tired and unspeakably bored with those kinds of discussions.

In fact, just recently I've debated homosexuality (yet again) at MAD, and Joseph Smith's sex life (yet again) here. Its all very wearying as much of it was put to rest for any fair minded individual generations ago, and the rest is argued in such a hostile, bad faith manner that rational discourse is impossible.

I will admit this, however, and that is that debating anti-Mormon fussbudgets and secular liberals is a very taxing and thankless task, and for very much the same reasons.

I will delve into that in another thread, at another time.


Just what you heard on talk radio,


Its repeated statements like this, as well as those aimed at Ezra Bensen et al, that belie your real political leanings as well as their intensity.

Keep going...

and that you claim to believe "all of the Church's teachings" without ever saying anything about them unless you can make an allusion to your political beliefs. (That would be an interesting discussion. All of the Church's teachings?)


You want to discuss all of the Church's teachings? A pretty tall order, don't you think?


What you did is listed a bunch of organizations to which members of the Church cannot belong. The Church said in its public statement that it does not oppose any political platforms.


Correct. Now, describe to me how a Latter Day Saint can be a Nazi and be understood to be a faithful, believing member of the Church at the same time.

Next, do the same with Communism.

I am not purporting to justify communism. But when you say that he cannot justify his political ideology, you mean justify it to you.


No, I mean he cannot intellectually or morally justify it within a gospel/church context.

That's why people don't like Mormons, Droopy. They're judgmental of everyone, and extremely judgmental of their own.


Anyone, who cannot find it within himself, morally and philosophically, to judge Communism/Marxism as systems of thought and systems of governance, has in effect, and without ambiguity excommunicated himself from the human race at this historical juncture.

Not from the Church.

The Church has made it clear that it doesn't take sides in politics. But its members can, and according to the modern prophets, not the least of which is Spencer W. Kimball, they must.


But they don't all take the same side, and the Church does not require them to do so. And however you choose to explain it away, BYU had Harry Reid speak there.


1. But the vast majority do take similar political positions on key issues, just as the members do, and always have.

2. I strongly suggest that people like, for example, Faust, hold to their Democratic party membership out of a general nostalgia for its older principles. There was plenty to respectfully disagree with in the old party, but it still shared core American values with conservatives and Republicans, and had not become dominated by its left wing and begun its culture war with American society.
And the Church hasn't thrown him under the bus as you would. The only voice I hate the sound of more than Harry Reid's is Barrack Obama;s, but it is irrelevant to Reid's membership in the Church. That is the Church's position, and you are in effect saying that the Church is wrong.


Reid is in the Church because the doctrine of the Church is that the wheat will grow with the tares, both within and without the Church until the end, and unless Reid does something grossly outside of the Church's moral and ethical perimeters (like commit adultery etc.), I see no reason why he would be excommunicated. Nor does bc or others holding the same views, at least who post at MAD and of whom I am aware.

However, the hypocrisy of this whole exercise continues to take my critics here by storm. At BYU, it was Reid himself who said "I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon", implying, by logical extension, that Republican Mormons were less than authentic or faithful themselves. It was Reid who claimed that numerous past Presidents and Apostles had taken the Church down "the wrong path", implying that the Prophets of the Church have no right or inspired insight into political matters.

Speaking ill of the Lord's anointed?

Probably the worst, in my estimation, is the fact that Reid, a Mormon, is the best friend the gaming industry in Nevada has ever had. The man is a disgrace to the Church, but who's targeted him for excommunication? Not me.

What is a "legalist," and what evidence do you have from my posts anywhere to prove that I am whatever you think that means? What kind of word games did they teach me in law school, Droopy?


The same one's they taught Johnny Cochran.


And I do not conflate you with the Church, so I am not motivated by "virulent hatred of the Church."


Yes you are. Take off your mask, the ball is over.
Last edited by Droopy on Tue May 18, 2010 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

Darth:

I don't f*****g care about politics, Droopy. I only care when the government is getting involved in my life. Then my politics is getting them out of my life.


Droopy:

I'll leave the logical incoherence of this statement for the night owls.


Darth:

There is nothing either logical or illogical about this statement, because I didn't state a proposition and did not propose an argument. I stated a personal value judgment.


There is an implied logical inconsistency in the statement, as you cannot state that you do not care at all about politics, and then state in the next breath that you are concerned about the government getting involved in your life, which is a political concern.

And, considering that the state is involved in much of your life 24/7, this last assertion also implies a self contradiction regarding the first, as this state of affairs negates the caveat of "only".

True, no argument was made, but an argument, or arguments, were implied by your premises, even if not explicitly stated.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Darth J »

Droopy wrote:The same one's they taught Johnny Cochran.


So, no, you cannot provide any facts instead of stereotypes. And you are completely incapable of demonstrating any specific knowledge of constitutional law, while telling me that I have never studied "that document."

I'm sure that your dogmatic obsession with politics has brought many converts into the Church and brought many inactive and struggling members back to the fold.

You embody what's killing the Church, Droopy. How it's hemorrhaging members, telling members to go blog in attempt to do damage control when people find out things about the Church on the internet. Increasing secular humanism. All child's play. People like you made people hate Mormons and want to stop being Mormon long before these other issues really reached critical mass, and your interaction with other people who know you're a Mormon will do immeasurably more damage to the Church than the most virulent anti-Mormon could ever dream.

And you know what the best part is? You're too above it all to engage in talking to "anti-Mormons," and it's waste of time and blah blah blah, but you have enough posts on here that your status is "God," and you're here at 1:15 in the morning (Utah time). To say nothing of your posts down in the lower kingdom.

User avatar
Nightlion
World's Top Zion Scientist
Posts: 9897
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Nightlion »

Darth J wrote:
Nightlion wrote:Please fail not to note that Droopy is ignoring Nightlion's (my) sensational accusations of the Lord's condign judgment.


If I ever get any faith back in Joseph Smith, you might convert me to your side, Nightlion.


I will keep my eye on you then. There is an important reason for the LDS Church to fail. Joseph's name will be had for good and evil among all nations. His name will always be good with me. The Lord's marvelous work and wonder is only just begun. The play needed an antagonist to manifest the protagonist.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Droopy »

I'm sure that your dogmatic obsession with politics has brought many converts into the Church and brought many inactive and struggling members back to the fold.


I've never discussed politics with anybody while engaged in missionary work of any kind.

You embody what's killing the Church, Droopy. How it's hemorrhaging members, telling members to go blog in attempt to do damage control when people find out things about the Church on the internet.


What's killing some members is bigoted anti-Mormon intellectual thugs such as yourself who prey, incubus-like, upon the weak or unsteady faith and testimony of new ore wavering members.

The rest of us just see you for what you are.

Increasing secular humanism. All child's play. People like you made people hate Mormons and want to stop being Mormon long before these other issues really reached critical mass, and your interaction with other people who know you're a Mormon will do immeasurably more damage to the Church than the most virulent anti-Mormon could ever dream.


The secular humanists, of all ages and of all schools of thought have always hated the Saints because the Saints tell them the truth about themselves and, if necessity dictates, tell it to their faces.

They don't like it when you do that.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Nightlion
World's Top Zion Scientist
Posts: 9897
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Post by Nightlion »

Droopy wrote:
The secular humanists, of all ages and of all schools of thought have always hated the Saints because the Saints tell them the truth about themselves and, if necessity dictates, tell it to their faces.

They don't like it when you do that.


You do not seem to like it all that much either. I told you the truth about yourself and the Church in general. Were is your defense?
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], huckelberry and 17 guests