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

[_Jason Bourne]

Bottom line: Elder Perry to dead aim at two core aspects of the contemporary Left: Keynesian economic policy, and the entitlement mentality, a psychology and attitude engendered by the welfare state and the poverty industry that supports it, both within and without government.

Not a single serious, rational, critically substantive response or attempted rebuttal yet, save for one, which was not a critical argument but an emotion-based pop Marxist rant.

Well, this thread has done its work. The usual suspects showed up with their usual non-answers, non-arguments, and ad hominem high school antics.

Argument won. Case closed.

Yet again.

You have demonstrated no such thing, Droopy. Elder Perry did not specify government use of credit or the social safety net. A couple of buzz words embedded in a talk tells me, at best, that this apostle is a conservative like you (although, arguably a lot less nutty), not that God endorses Republican politics.

So, who gives a flying crap about your cherry-picking of GC quotes to do your little one-man rave party?

I know I don't. Party on, but it does not vindicate your retrograde lunacy.

And thus we see the problem. Droopy thinks he is more faithful, more righteous, one of the virgins whose lamp is full, so he knows what Elder Perry meant and he is going to tell you and me and the other apostates here. How can one even begin to have a discussion with such a mind set that concluded because they are better than you or me they are right and really in the know?

[_Jason Bourne]

As I've already made clear, the vast majority of faithful, committed Latter-day Saints (which pre-disqualifies you by definition) who have a substantive understanding of gospel doctrine and philosophy (yet another pre-disqualfication) will understand that statement just as I understood it, as, come now Kish, it could only, given the overwhelming preponderance of historic Church doctrine and GA teaching for the duration of the 20th century, have one possible range of meaning.

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. 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. Both have a deep understanding of LDS Church doctrine and scripture as well as its history and both are committed Latter-day Saints. They would find your positon repugnant I have no doubt.

[_Kishkumen]

And thus we see the problem. Droopy thinks he is more faithful, more righteous, one of the virgins whose lamp is full, so he knows what Elder Perry meant and he is going to tell you and me and the other apostates here. How can one even begin to have a discussion with such a mind set that concluded because they are better than you or me they are right and really in the know?

Indeed. He has his reward.

[_consiglieri]

I would love to see how many non-LDS Republicans would have been eager to live the United Order. How many of them would line up to live the Law of Consecration? All of that love of private property and liberty makes me think that, uh, not many Republicans would be eager to jump on that bandwagon.

Coming a bit late to this Droopy feeding fenzy ("not where he eats but where he is eaten)", this reminds me that Bushman gave as one of the main reasons Oliver Cowdery left the Church that Joseph Smith told him to not sell his Missouri property after the saints got kicked out.

Cowdery felt this command interfered with his constitutional right to own property and would not brook it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Kishkumen]

Coming a bit late to this Droopy feeding fenzy ("not where he eats but where he is eaten)", this reminds me that Bushman gave as one of the main reasons Oliver Cowdery left the Church that Joseph Smith told him to not sell his Missouri property after the saints got kicked out.

Cowdery felt this command interfered with his constitutional right to own property and would not brook it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Conservatives like Droopy were dropping the word "apostasy" over the Church's immigrant-friendly policy position. I think it is fairly clear where the real allegiance of some of the extreme conservative Mormons is placed.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Conservatives like Droopy were dropping the word "apostasy" over the Church's immigrant-friendly policy position. I think it is fairly clear where the real allegiance of some of the extreme conservative Mormons is placed.

For a number of ultra-conservatives I know, their political beliefs are their religion, and if forced to choose between their politics and the church, they'll pick their politics every time. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

[_Jason Bourne]

Coming a bit late to this Droopy feeding fenzy ("not where he eats but where he is eaten)", this reminds me that Bushman gave as one of the main reasons Oliver Cowdery left the Church that Joseph Smith told him to not sell his Missouri property after the saints got kicked out.

Cowdery felt this command interfered with his constitutional right to own property and would not brook it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Joseph Smith that communist! I imagine Droop and BC would have had a real issues had they lived in Missouri and Joseph said you cannot sell that land.

[_Jason Bourne]

For a number of ultra-conservatives I know, their political beliefs are their religion, and if forced to choose between their politics and the church, they'll pick their politics every time. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

That seemed pretty clear when the Church, about a year ago, came out with their relatively caring and liberal view on immigration. Really chaffed some of the way right wingers. If I recall BC was pretty peeved about it.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, you're a complete idiot. The guy talks about liberals in exactly the same crazed way that you do.

I've never said anything crazy about "liberals." I've told the truth about them (grounded in what is now approaching 30 years of intensive study of them and their beliefs, much of it from primary sources), and the truth about the Left is, well, crazy. The truth is, indeed, crazy, loony, nuts, bizarre, and frightening. Yes, this is true, but its the truth about the Left and leftism, in all its naked, emperor-in-new-clothes horror, not about the bearer of that truth.

Just because he is also a Neo-Luddite does not mean you get to tell him that he is also a Leftist.

His core ideas are classic environmentalist romantic neo-primitivism, complete with the hatred of capitalism, technology, modern industrial society, and the notion that modern industrial society has been a net curse on mankind.

Given that you've demonstrated in this forum that you can't even give a rudimentary coherent account of the differences and similarities between Nazism, socialism, and fascism (and that you have no substantive understanding whatsoever regarding the core ideas, concepts, and values underlying conservatism) your intellectual credibility in posing to others as an authority on the ideology of the Unabomber is at slapstick levels of comedy relief.

You have got to be the thickest dullard on this entire board. Only a person as abjectly stupid as you could read his incessant diatribes about the deficiencies of liberals and leftists and then proceed to call him a leftist.

Have you read Lenin's incessant diatribes about the deficiencies of other leftists holding different views than the accepted (for him) Marxist-Leininist perspective? The Nazis and communists were both committed leftists, and they not only argued, they battled and killed each other in the streets (for a while).

Clearly, Squish, the tiny, isolated desert island you call a mind, blasted and burned by the consuming fires of "progressive" ideology and the viral infection of Platonic intellectual self-importance that feeds from its gangrenous tissues, has long ago severed itself from any semblance of what civilized human beings once called "education." and "wisdom."

But producing half-educated gatekeepers of their own intellectual pretensions is precisely what much of the humanities and social sciences is all about, at the present time.

You are at home, I'm quite sure, in that environment.

[_Darth J]

you can't even give a rudimentary coherent account of the differences and similarities between Nazism, socialism, and fascism

I can!

Under Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the Mormon Church embraced socialism.

During World War II, the Church embraced Nazism. For example, this December 9, 1933 article in the Church News, "Mormonism and the New Germany:"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A ... =frontpage (go to page 19)

See also: http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/024-20-29.pdf

Currently, the Church embraces fascism:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcwghb ... if-th_news