Page 3 of 3

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:28 am
by Nimrod
Darth J wrote:...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.

Darth J,

Your prayers have been answered. The Internet FP is now composed of:

President Droopy, Prophet, Seer and Poster, 'now, ya'll better register as Republicans'
President bcspace, 1st Counselor whose new duties include overseeing correlation and excising all mention of Noah and his flood
President Will "I hope he saves our Book of Abraham bacon" Schryver, 2nd Counselor

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:31 am
by Nimrod
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.

This term is normally reserved for those who have been in the Church and rejected the propositions I have mentioned above (as well as much else).

This would also include, at some level of commitment, those who uphold and support political ideologies and beliefs in contradiction to and in rebellion against the teachings of the gospel.

Oh, and as to Bill Mahr, I just confused Darth with Trevor for a moment. That happens sometimes. I was just retreading my Birkenstocks and lost track of the threads.

My apologies.


Droopy, you do know, surely, that all an apostate is one who is no longer being duped. Shutter at the thought of thinking for yourself.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:35 am
by Blixa
All I know is, I welcome my new sith overlord. Nice work, Darth J.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:46 am
by Daniel2
Droopy wrote:The Church has said or claimed nothing regarding this indicative of the slightest sympathy for or acceptance of the ideology, beliefs and assumptions of the environmental movement.

One small problem, Droopy. I quoted extensive articles from "The Ensign," the LDS church's official publication, supporting environmental principles.

You, on the other hand, keep claiming that the LDS church's beliefs and doctrines are inconsistent with environmental prinicples, but have never offered any statements or examples from church publications in support of your faulty claims.

You ducked out of the thread over on MADB and switched tracks to MD, but you haven't offered anything of substance to support your claims.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Darin

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:51 am
by Trevor
Darin wrote:One small problem, Droopy. I quoted extensive articles from "The Ensign," the LDS church's official publication, supporting environmental principles.

You, on the other hand, keep claiming that the LDS church's beliefs and doctrines are inconsistent with environmental prinicples, but have never offered any statements or examples from church publications in support of your faulty claims.


Perhaps he simply assumes that the LDS Church is being completely disingenuous and only pretending to care about environmental principles. Surely this is the most revealing aspect of the whole conversation.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:33 pm
by Droopy
One small problem, Droopy. I quoted extensive articles from "The Ensign," the LDS church's official publication, supporting environmental principles.


Unless Those statements from the Ensign are taken from a First Presidency message, or otherwise represent the united counsel and position of the Brethren, I could care less. I demonstrated clearly that the hysterical, intemperate, pseudoscientific and ideologically fevered assertions of your first example were without credibility. I had no intention of responding to a thread as long as the one you posted. Replying to all the examples there would have been impossible. I have other things to do.

Indeed, I would say unequivocally that any ideologically generated cause or body of beliefs, and especially one that was so clearly faddish and generationally conditioned as the early environmental movement, that claims for itself a grounding in the gospel is going to have to account for itself far beyond a few articles over a nearly forty year period by obscure LDS contributors to the Ensign.

This includes LDS scholars and academics. It also includes lone apostles, seventies, or any other prominent Church members. Being a member of the Church and having your opinions published in the Ensign do not invoke my, or any other members obeisance to what is said. It is the Brethren who are authorized to interpret scripture and reveal new doctrine for the Church. The members, however, as well as the GAs, are tasked with defending, maintaining and upholding that which has already been revealed and established. We are also to "discern the spirits" and call evil and darkness by its proper name and expose it to the disinfectant of gospel light. That's all I have any interest in here on this issue.

You, on the other hand, keep claiming that the LDS church's beliefs and doctrines are inconsistent with environmental prinicples, but have never offered any statements or examples from church publications in support of your faulty claims.


So long as you engage the issues using nebulous generalities such as "environmental principles", and will not engage the substantive central premises and practical policy concepts of the movement, broadly speaking, I can do little as to providing you with scriptural sources.

Of course the gospel is against wanton pollution, or needless environmental destruction, or the wasting of resources, but this is not what the "environmental movement" has historically been primarily concerned with, and to as substantial extent, among its intellectual leadership, never has been.

You ducked out of the thread over on MADB and switched tracks to MD, but you haven't offered anything of substance to support your claims.


Stop behaving like Scratch, he does it better than you in any case.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:41 pm
by Droopy

Perhaps he simply assumes that the LDS Church is being completely disingenuous and only pretending to care about environmental principles. Surely this is the most revealing aspect of the whole conversation.


What "environmental principles" does the Church care about?

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:46 pm
by consiglieri
Droopy wrote:No, you are simply another pristine example of the kind of intellectual poseur this place attracts and makes comfortable: poorly read, half educated, and intellectually pubescent.


Is that better than intellectually prepubescent, Droops?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:50 pm
by beastie
droopy
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.


We’ve already been over this, and I see you still view the following statement as nonsense:

Beastie, quoting an official church released statement:

Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.


Droopy’s direct response to that statement:
This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12364&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=189

The link to the church’s statement on political neutrality can be found here:
http://www.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/comm ... f-civility

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:31 pm
by Droopy
consiglieri wrote:
Droopy wrote:No, you are simply another pristine example of the kind of intellectual poseur this place attracts and makes comfortable: poorly read, half educated, and intellectually pubescent.


Is that better than intellectually prepubescent, Droops?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri



No. It all goes downhill beginning in Junior High School.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:05 pm
by Joseph
"This would also include, at some level of commitment, those who uphold and support political ideologies and beliefs in contradiction to and in rebellion against the teachings of the gospel."

Heber J Grant, David O McKay and so many other leaders told members to support their government and serve it... folks like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, MaoTse Tung, Castro, Tojo and so many other murderers. No intelligent person could possibly tell anyone to support slime like this for any reason. You fight against tyrants, not enable them so you won't be bothered.

The God of This Earth seems to be who LDS Leadership listens to so they find it easy to accomodate getting along with and supporting murderers.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:20 pm
by Droopy
Beastie, quoting an official church released statement:

Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.


Droopy’s direct response to that statement:


This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).


Back in context, what I contend is "sheer nonsense" is Beastie's longstanding contention that the institutional Church's political neutrality has something to do with the gospel it teaches, which by definition and by virtue of the substance of the questions and aspects of human existence within its purview, cannot possibly be politially neutral, at least on central, salient issues and values. Nor does this in any manner place bridle and reins upon individual members who have covenanted with God to testify of him and his gospel, defend the truth and confound false doctrines, to "preach, teach, warn and expound", to cry repentance and warn our neighbors to prepare for the Second Coming of the Savior.

The contradiction in your interpretation of the Church's statements, always attempting to extend its neutrality on matters of partisan politics, elections, and the moral status of members of various parties is abrasively stark. Spencer W. Kimball, famously, strongly counseled Latter Day Saints to be involved in politics, to "stand up and be heard" and to make their "voices" heard in political matters. We are to be involved and engaged in politial matters...from a gospel perspective.

This counsel has been repeated on a number of occasions by other GAs since that time, and a contradiction between this counsel and the Church's neutrality statement looms unless it is understood that the fact that the institutional Church does not take a position on some secular/political subject in no way implies that individual members, seeing political concepts or philosophies that tend toward compatibility with the gospel or away from it (or which are overtly hostile, as many historically have been), are either restricted from or absolved from their covenant responsibility to critique, evaluate and make gospel centered, critical judgments regarding political ideologies, programs and beliefs from a gospel frame of reference.

You know, the really ironic thing about your entire approach is that I have posted here, on several occasions (and bc on several more), extensive quotations by General Authorities, both from early Church history and over the last three quarters of the 20th century or so, regarding any number of subjects, but mostly concerning the nature of the United Order, Socialism, Communism, and the New Deal welfare state.

These GAs, while remaining perfectly neutral as to party affiliation and without naming any political official, have clearly, unambiguously and without equivocation brought political ideologies, programs and polices under the scrutiny of gospel principles and made unmistakable statements regarding them and their relation to Church doctrines.

This has been done with aspects of the New Deal welfare state, the later Great Society welfare state, Socialism, Communism, abortion, the ERA, population control, homosexual marriage, and other aspects of the late 20th century secular culture.

At no time have the Brethren ever shied away from a critique and judgment of gospel principles and values when they are in conflict with the World and especially when the World's political values and policies are in hostile aggression against the moral and spiritual basis of a civil, free and ordered society.

Your inability (or aversion) to comprehending the difference between neutrality on party politics and involvement in elections, and accepting that there are members of different political parties who are, in essence, good and moral people, and direct and deep engagement with the claims, assertions and beliefs made in ideological systems and polices that are in conflict with the gospel and its standards, has worn out its welcome.

Apparently, numerous GAs, all the way back to Joseph Smith and John Taylor, and including, in modern times, Spencer Kimball, Marion G. Romney, Ezra Taft Bensen, and many other authorities of the Church, are in violation of the Church's neutrality policy.

Of course, the real problem behind all of this is precisely that, in many cases, and as politics and political ideology have colonized, encompassed and enveloped more and more aspects of our lives in the 20th century, the difference between a political theory or ideological statement and various beliefs and values deriving from and found within philosophy, ethics, history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and religion (ideology itself encompassing and having incorporated into itself so many of the questions and concerns of these areas of human interest) is virtually indiscernible.

This means that, if Latter Day Saints cannot critique and make critical judgments upon the ideological and political questions (and Zeitgeist) of the day, then what you are saying is that "Mormonism", outside of some narrow channel given over to morals and dress standards, have no business pronouncing upon virtually anything regarding the surrounding secular culture at all, and that is, I believe, precisely the end sought by your particular augments.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:20 pm
by JohnStuartMill
Trevor wrote:
Droopy wrote:It can also be understood, as I (and others) have long maintained, as a kind of militant gnostic neo-Pantheism strongly attached to other core aspects of the post sixties Left.


What a load of horse manure. Yeah, every environmentalist out there is smoking pot, reading Marx, and worshiping Gaia. You are so full of it.

Two out of three for me. Maybe there's something to that after all.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:27 pm
by beastie
Back in context, what I contend is "sheer nonsense" is Beastie's longstanding contention that the institutional Church's political neutrality has something to do with the gospel it teaches, which by definition and by virtue of the substance of the questions and aspects of human existence within its purview, cannot possibly be politially neutral, at least on central, salient issues and values.


Oh, please do provide the context wherein I made this longstanding contention. It should be easy to do, unless, of course, my "longstanding contention" is a figment of your imagination and this is one more tired attempt to divert attention from the fact that you quite obviously called the church's own statement nonsense.

The fact is that my position simply mirrored the church's own position on political neutrality.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:30 pm
by Droopy
beastie wrote:
Back in context, what I contend is "sheer nonsense" is Beastie's longstanding contention that the institutional Church's political neutrality has something to do with the gospel it teaches, which by definition and by virtue of the substance of the questions and aspects of human existence within its purview, cannot possibly be politially neutral, at least on central, salient issues and values.


Oh, please do provide the context wherein I made this longstanding contention. It should be easy to do, unless, of course, my "longstanding contention" is a figment of your imagination and this is one more tired attempt to divert attention from the fact that you quite obviously called the church's own statement nonsense.

The fact is that my position simply mirrored the church's own position on political neutrality.


Argument over Ms. Scratch, unless you want to actually engage to points and arguments I have made above.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:32 pm
by Droopy
Joseph wrote:"This would also include, at some level of commitment, those who uphold and support political ideologies and beliefs in contradiction to and in rebellion against the teachings of the gospel."

Heber J Grant, David O McKay and so many other leaders told members to support their government and serve it... folks like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, MaoTse Tung, Castro, Tojo and so many other murderers. No intelligent person could possibly tell anyone to support slime like this for any reason. You fight against tyrants, not enable them so you won't be bothered.

The God of This Earth seems to be who LDS Leadership listens to so they find it easy to accomodate getting along with and supporting murderers.



I've seen incoherent raving of this kind since the first day I began posting here, but I should bake a cake for this one.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:35 pm
by beastie
Droopy wrote:Argument over Ms. Scratch, unless you want to actually engage to points and arguments I have made above.



You have falsely attributed a position to me that I have never taken. Your entire "argument" was based upon that falsity.

It is your responsibility to prove that you correctly summarized my position, or retract your entire "argument".

I predict you will do neither, and continue to pretend that you've responded in a meaningful fashion to the church statement I have repeatedly shared. But I also predict you will only fool yourself.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:59 pm
by Droopy
You have falsely attributed a position to me that I have never taken. Your entire "argument" was based upon that falsity.


1. What argument did I falsely attribute to you?

2. It is you, in fact, who has falsely attributed to me denial of or inconsistency regarding the Church's official stance on politics, due to a willful and tendentious interpretation of its statements.

Re: Who is the Apostate Here?

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 5:28 pm
by beastie
Droopy wrote:1. What argument did I falsely attribute to you?

2. It is you, in fact, who has falsely attributed to me denial of or inconsistency regarding the Church's official stance on politics, due to a willful and tendentious interpretation of its statements.


For heaven's sake, if you're going to post, at least try to pay a modicum of attention. No wonder you have no idea what I really said.

I already pointed out what you falsely attributed to me:

Back in context, what I contend is "sheer nonsense" is Beastie's longstanding contention that the institutional Church's political neutrality has something to do with the gospel it teaches, which by definition and by virtue of the substance of the questions and aspects of human existence within its purview, cannot possibly be politially neutral, at least on central, salient issues and values.


All I have done is repeatedly share the church's own statement on political neutrality.