L. Tom Perry Takes Dead Aim at the Left in Conference

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy wrote:

Get off your holy high white horse and take a breather, Jason.

Given your comments here that you understand that Elder Perry's one sentence better than anyone else because you are better read and because the faithful need no explanation of such things, this is simply rich.

Carry on.

[_Jason Bourne]

And thus we see the problem. Droopy thinks he is more faithful, more righteous, one of the virgins whose lamp is full,

CFR

See Below:

He didn't need to. The entire 20th century history of the Church is steeped in these kinds of comments about the welfare state, from the 30s to the present. Only someone unfamiliar with Church doctrine and philosophy could possible miss them, or misinterpret them

The Brethren won't get clearly and overtly political. They never name parties, programs, or initiatives directly.

They don't need to, for the faithful Saints. They know precisely what he's talking about. No sophistry needed or desired, thank you.

In essence you strongly imply YOU KNOW because YOU are more faithful and more righteous. This whole thread you have said such things as well as mocked others as being ignorant of LDS doctrine.

so he knows what Elder Perry meant...

I know what Elder Perry meant because I have a deep and substantive knowledge of the gospel, forged from nearly 40 years of study and reflection, and because I have normal reading comprehension, the ability to think logically, a strong belief that words mean things, and a desire to know the truth, and then live, to the best of my ability, that which I know.

As do I. As do the local leaders I was mentioned in another post. I don't read into it what you have nor would they.

You see, Jason, as a conservative, I don't have to play head games with myself to make the gospel fit my political, social, and philosophical views.

Sure you do. Your spin on the United Order is a classic example. Your attempt to overlay conservatice dogma as part of the gospel is nothing but what you describe. But you think you are right on the money because you are more righteous and faithful than others.

And you have the gall to tell me to get off my high horse. Puhleaaase!

And, as the gospel, not any other system of belief or body of ideas, is the fundamental frame of reference for all my other philosophical positions, theories, and speculations, my conservative beliefs (or those on any other subject) must be consistent and harmonious with Church teachings, or they get modified or dumped.

Your spin on the gospel you mean. But what of my democratic friends who are local leaders where I live. If they view this differently that you is it because they are less faithful?

That is not what I've ever seen happen when a leftist mentality infects LDS in the Church or follows them into the waters of baptism. When one is on the Left, it is then always the Church that must converge and absorb "progressive" beliefs, not progressive beliefs that must withstand scrutiny under the microscope of gospel teachin

The two people I refer two who are more left than me or you grew up LDS. They were baptized at 8 years old.

[_Jason Bourne]

As I have noted in the past, my current SP, and prior SP, who was recently releases as an area 70, would disagree with you.

And I would disagree with them.

Feel free to disagree but not to disparage.

Both are democrats though they are more center left than way left. Both professionally are very bright attorneys. Both are I am sure at least as well read as are you, perhaps more so.

Yeah, Jason...I'm quite sure. I mean, they must be, right?

No I did not say that. I simply point out that they are likely as well read or more so than you and they would likely conclude differently. And they I am sure are as faithful as you. You said the faithful know what Elder Perry meant.

Both have a deep understanding of LDS Church doctrine and scripture as well as its history and both are committed Latter-day Saints.

So you say. Fine. And I say that I do as well.

So I know. Are you being obtuse about this on purpose or are you really missing the point I am trying to make.

They would find your position repugnant I have no doubt.

Name one, just one Jason, and no need for anything exotic, but just one classically leftist position - on anything, anything at all - that could reasonably be harmonized with gospel principles and teachings.

I am not here to read any political thing into the gospel. Unlike you I believe Jesus when he said render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's.

[_Jason Bourne]

So the Church is not true, then? Well, I kind of knew you felt that way, but thanks for making it explicit. That's OK, of course, if that's really the path you have chosen, but its the whole NOM project of fomenting and sheparding a convergence between Zion and the Great and Spacious Building that I have a real problem with.

My testimony is not on trial here Droopy nor do I answer to you. And honestly I could not give a poo about what you have a real problem with. Your problems are not my worries.

[_Droopy]

Given your comments here that you understand that Elder Perry's one sentence better than anyone else because you are better read and because the faithful need no explanation of such things, this is simply rich.

Understanding what Elder Perry meant takes no more than a decent working knowledge of political and social history and a basic comprehension of core Church doctrine.

[_Darth J]

Understanding what Elder Perry meant takes no more than a decent working knowledge of political and social history and a basic comprehension of core Church doctrine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Alternative take on Brother Blood's mindless parroting of Tea Party talking points about what the problem with "entitlement culture" is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162- ... t-the-top/

You see, I think far too many corporate executives are getting away with the same sort of garbage. What I'm referring to is big company executives with out-of-control compensation packages regardless of how the company actually performs. Even worse, huge CEO exit packages that further incentivize failure.

And while the practice is not as pervasive as the mainstream media would have you believe -- it's far more common and pronounced at very large companies in certain industries -- it does indeed occur. And it demonstrates exactly the same thing we saw in Chu: a top-down entitlement mentality.

Now, I occasionally rail against the entitlement culture that seems to be infecting our society, but you know, it's stuff like this that gets everyday folks up in arms and wondering where their piece of the pie is. Ironically, the entitlement mentality at the top is probably fueling a mainstream entitlement culture.

None of this changes my message that people are only entitled to what they worked for. But it does make people tone-deaf to that message when leaders are tone deaf to their own accountability.

When business executives and government leaders think they're entitled to huge paydays or an "A" grade when they've clearly failed their stakeholders and constituents in every measurable way, what kind of behavior do we expect from the masses?

[_Kishkumen]

When business executives and government leaders think they're entitled to huge paydays or an "A" grade when they've clearly failed their stakeholders and constituents in every measurable way, what kind of behavior do we expect from the masses?

Uhuh! Amen! You tell it!

[_Droopy]

He didn't need to. The entire 20th century history of the Church is steeped in these kinds of comments about the welfare state, from the 30s to the present. Only someone unfamiliar with Church doctrine and philosophy could possible miss them, or misinterpret them

The Brethren won't get clearly and overtly political. They never name parties, programs, or initiatives directly.

They don't need to, for the faithful Saints. They know precisely what he's talking about. No sophistry needed or desired, thank you.

In essence you strongly imply YOU KNOW because YOU are more faithful and more righteous. This whole thread you have said such things as well as mocked others as being ignorant of LDS doctrine.

I know because, yes, I consider myself to be basically a faithful LDS who is trying to live the gospel as best I can, with a sure and unwavering testimony of the Church and gospel, who supports and sustains the Lord's servants in our day, who does have a deep understanding of LDS doctrine, and who, unlike you, has not, for all intents, retreated from his testimony and faith, let go of the iron rod, and wandered off in pursuit of whatever it is that appears more appealing. Your pious smear that I think I am "more righteous" or that I am one of the wise virgins is just what I've come to expect from the typical NOM liberal with his typical sanctimonious, self-righteous sense of moral and spiritual superiority and the right, born, in a perverse sense, precisely of his apostasy from the Church, to sit in righteous judgement over the spirituality and faith of others with whom his own apostasy has brought him into conflict.

An organ grinder monkey with a good working knowledge of basic Church doctrine would have understood immediately what Perry meant. 99% of faithful LDS also understood what he meant. The fact that you have to dance, prance, gyrate, and run in circles over attitudes and perspectives found among the GAs and expressed in official venues since at least the 1930s, is clear testament to what I'm talking about.

As do I. As do the local leaders I was mentioned in another post. I don't read into it what you have nor would they.

So, let's just cut to the chase here: virtually any doctrine, concept, ideology, belief, political policy, and interpretation of the human condition, human events, and the words of the prophets is viable and compatible with Church doctrine, or, in other words, there is no definable, clear, settled Church doctrine at all that anyone can actually agree and unite upon.

Perhaps your local leaders have a postmodern concept of LDS doctrine, or of the concept of the meaning of words, or of what "truth" actually is, but most of us still remaining here in what we like to term, "reality," where the gate is still straight, the way still narrow, and the doctrines of the gospel are actually settled and stable, and stand as an ensign and contrast to the doctrines of Babylon and the nostrums and philosophies of the great and spacious building, would prefer to remain faithful (sorry to burden and shock your more evolved and refined liberal sensitivities and sense of personal sanctification with that, but it has to be said) and centered in the truths that have been revealed to us.

Sure you do. Your spin on the United Order is a classic example. Your attempt to overlay conservative dogma as part of the gospel is nothing but what you describe.

https://si.LDS.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... al_eng.pdf

And, as the gospel, not any other system of belief or body of ideas, is the fundamental frame of reference for all my other philosophical positions, theories, and speculations, my conservative beliefs (or those on any other subject) must be consistent and harmonious with Church teachings, or they get modified or dumped.

Your spin on the gospel you mean.

No. I meant precisely what I said. I have no "spin" on the gospel; only what I've been taught by the Brethren, and by the Spirit, since I was a young man and became truly interested and dedicated to the gospel. It also represents the overwhelming mainstream of thought, philosophy, and state of mind of the vast majority of Saints I have ever known.

You may not like it, you may not be able to handle it, but it is the people who attempt to meld leftist ideas and beliefs (especially about the core elements of human nature, the human condition, and the proper forms of governance and economic order) with the Church who are the outliers within the Church, floating on the fringes of Church doctrine while following the forms and going through the motions.

I will not back down from this position. I will not bend. I will not deny my conscience or my long and hard fought for understanding of the gospel and its teachings.

Fine, Jason. Bring on the liberals, the leftists, the socialists, the communists (and let's throw in some fascists and Nazis into the gospel big tent just to give it a kick), the Greens, the neo-Luddites, the multiculturalists, Afrocentrists, feminists, and open, practicing homosexuals. Bring it all into Zion, Jason. Its a big tent. Leave no one out. After all, since, for the Left, the central organizing principle is tolerance and diversity, then, obviously, you must be right; any political ideology or party affiliation is compatible with the Church. Perry could have meant anything by his use of the term "debt" and "entitlement" with respect to the term "culture."

Of course, if the doctrines of the Church are compatible with everything, then the doctrines of the Church are compatible with nothing - there is no Church doctrine. There is no standard, or ensign, or narrow way.

But what of my democratic friends who are local leaders where I live. If they view this differently that you is it because they are less faithful?

The wheat and the tares grow together until the very end. You're question is ultimately meaningless as "faithfulness" occurs with each individual, over time, in various phases of life and degrees of development and dedication. I have no idea where they are at this time. However, if they are to the Left politically (which encompasses a great deal, Jason), then, yes, something is amiss, somewhere (just as any LDS who supports homosexual marriage is in process of careening to the fringes of the gospel, if not to a point outside its boundaries, whatever else he may believe or do as to church service).

[_Droopy]

Understanding what Elder Perry meant takes no more than a decent working knowledge of political and social history and a basic comprehension of core Church doctrine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors. Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Alternative take on Brother Blood's mindless parroting of Tea Party talking points about what the problem with "entitlement culture" is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162- ... t-the-top/

You see, I think far too many corporate executives are getting away with the same sort of garbage. What I'm referring to is big company executives with out-of-control compensation packages regardless of how the company actually performs. Even worse, huge CEO exit packages that further incentivize failure.

And while the practice is not as pervasive as the mainstream media would have you believe -- it's far more common and pronounced at very large companies in certain industries -- it does indeed occur. And it demonstrates exactly the same thing we saw in Chu: a top-down entitlement mentality.

Now, I occasionally rail against the entitlement culture that seems to be infecting our society, but you know, it's stuff like this that gets everyday folks up in arms and wondering where their piece of the pie is. Ironically, the entitlement mentality at the top is probably fueling a mainstream entitlement culture.

None of this changes my message that people are only entitled to what they worked for. But it does make people tone-deaf to that message when leaders are tone deaf to their own accountability.

When business executives and government leaders think they're entitled to huge paydays or an "A" grade when they've clearly failed their stakeholders and constituents in every measurable way, what kind of behavior do we expect from the masses?

You might wish to try logical argumentation and some degree of philosophical rigor at some point in your long and dubious career as an intellectual hack, Barf.

You might find it to your liking (although, I rather doubt it).

[_Droopy]

Feel free to disagree but not to disparage.

I have not disparaged them. Off your high horse, Jason, for the second time.

And they I am sure are as faithful as you.

What do you mean by the term "faithful?"