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.
Uh you can say to me what I bold above but in the same proceeding paragraphs you crow about your own righteous resume by saying:
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
I mean really this is rich in irony. Droopy tells me I handed him a pious smear when well, he just spouted about how pious he is. Really Droopy this is a waste of time. You simply think that you have more knowledge and spiritual insight because you are more righteous than others. You have done it all over this thread. You are doing it in the very post where you whine and accuse me of being a pious self righteous NOM. But I am not the one going on about how I have some special insight to two words in one sentence in a lengthy talk because I am faithful, have a superior gospel knowledge, etc. I am not the one saying over and over to Kish how blighted his knowledge of the gospel is. I am not the one calling Bob a bigot.
But I am calling you out as a pious ass because that is how you act here. Sorry but that is the way it is. Yet you have the gall to call me pious and self righteous. Well, maybe. But I know my own heart and my own self talk since my own faith has undergone changes. I know less than I used to and I am less certain about a lot of things. And in this journey I have learned to be cautious about judging others. But at times I can't resist it especially when the pomposity piety is so overtly demonstrated as it is by you in this thread.
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.
CFR
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.
CFR where I am arguing for this.
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.
Or perhaps they have better insight than you and you are simply bloviating. Who knows?
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.
No doubt LDS people lean conservative. It was not always so. But yes in my life and your it is.
You may not like it, you may not be able to handle it,
I am not all that worried about it. I just think it is out of line to politicize the gospel. I think it goes against what the LDS leaders say about such things. I think that for a world wide Church with members that hold all sorts of political views to try to apply your brand of conservatism on them is wrong. And I am more conservative than liberal Droopy.
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.
Who is doing this? Oh yea, Joanna Brooks!!
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.
Well bully for you.
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."
Last I checked the good news was available for everyone. Are you advocating a political litmus test?
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.
Oh shut the hell up. Really this is boring.
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).
So they are tares. They have something amiss because they have a political view that you think is abhorrent. And you tell me to get off my high horse? I see. Yep you do not know where they are nor do you know where I am so shut the hell up about this as well.
