Where Do You Draw The Line Between Gospel Doctrine And Politics?

[zerinus]

The gospel is not entirely apolitical. The Constitution, for example, we are told by revelation, is an inspired document; which is political. It is a political instrument for the creation of the United States. It is impossible to discuss the Constitution without being political, or discussing politics. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has also counselled the Saints how to vote:

D&C 98:

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

That is basically telling the Saints how to vote. It is gospel doctrine, but also politics. It is impossible to discuss this scripture without being political. I actually like to discuss this scripture (including its practical application in the upcoming US general election), because it is part of the commandment of the Lord to the Saints which they are required to keep. Are we allowed to discuss the gospel in this forum or are we not? I am curious what the answer to this question is going to be.

Edited April 27, 2012 by zerinus

[Log]

I have never understood the notion that "no religious viewpoint shall be leveraged in determining public policies," otherwise known as "the separation between church and state."

Politics is nothing more than the application of deadly force or the threat thereof to human relationships. Religion, or lack thereof, determines our valuation of when, how, and for what purposes deadly force or the threat thereof may be applied to human relationships. Therefore, religion, or lack thereof, determines politics.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

No problem with me. But let's try keep with the spirit of this board and keep it about Mormons and not so much about politics.

[Duncan]

when the discussion is about the WOW and someone mentions Billy Carter then i'm out

[thesometimesaint]

The ultimate authority in the US is "We the people". Not Popes, Prophets, or Ministers of religion. or the Divine Right of Kings.

[zerinus]

I have never understood the notion that "no religious viewpoint shall be leveraged in determining public policies," otherwise known as "the separation between church and state."

Politics is nothing more than the application of deadly force or the threat thereof to human relationships. Religion, or lack thereof, determines our valuation of when, how, and for what purposes deadly force or the threat thereof may be applied to human relationships. Therefore, religion, or lack thereof, determines politics.

Well, there is a principle enshrined in the Constitution that there should be no "religious test" for political office. In the Doctrine and Covenants also it is stated:

D&C 134:

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

But that is different from the question I am asking.

Edited April 27, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

No problem with me. But let's try keep with the spirit of this board and keep it about Mormons and not so much about politics.

The ultimate authority in the US is "We the people". Not Popes, Prophets, or Ministers of religion. or the Divine Right of Kings.

Agreed; but are we allowed to discuss it on this forum though? If not, why not? That is the question I am asking.

[Calm]

A question of if something is allowed or not should be directed to the mods. Have you contacted them to notify them you are asking them and not just throwing out the question for general discussion?

I don't think anyone besides the mods can give you any other answer besides that which is in the board guidelines under the topics not allowed section:

Politics (unless directly related to the church).

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

A question of if something is allowed or not should be directed to the mods. Have you contacted them to notify them you are asking them and not just throwing out the question for general discussion?

I don't think anyone besides the mods can give you any other answer besides that which is in the board guidelines:

I am doing a bit of both actually. It seems like a grey area to me, and therefore something that can be clarified through a discussion. It seems to me that the mods tend to act in an arbitrary fashion when allowing or disallowing a topic, or when closing down a thread, on the grounds that is it "political," because the rules don't seem to be very clear as to what is "political" and what isn't.

[Calm]

At the very least I think the mods have made clear that equating or linking in any way faithfulness or lack of to the gospel with any political party is inappropriate.

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

There are wise and good men with terrible political ideas and dishonest and scheming men who present some tremendous political ideas.

I think what that scripture is asking us to do is remember the character of a candidate as well as what we think we can gain from their candidacy.

The no religious test principle from the Constitution has to do with barring candidates from certain religions from running for office. It does not say a persons religion or moral beliefs cannot be considered as a basis for an individuals vote. If an individual doesn't want to vote for a Mormon that is their choice.

[CV75]

The gospel is not entirely apolitical.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is set forth by the Savior Himself in 3 Nephi 27:13-22. I see no politics in it, but as with all things, His Gospel has application in politics.

From Wikipedia, politics is “the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments… It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”

I do not believe Christ uses art or science in running His kingdom. 3 Nephi 27:13-22 clearly indicates that He follows the Father’s will, law, justice and judgment, agency, covenants, and work (consistent with D&C 88:13 and 34). I think His use of power is a far superior method than art and science, which, while quite valuable to us, only reflect human learning and are part of our accountability, testing and development in the process through which we may eventually arise to His stature through grace. All earthly governments will eventually give way to His Kingdom, which is not of this world and which doesn't run on politics.

This takes nothing away from the inspired US Constitution, but the Constitution falls more in line with the other bounty (which must be shared—D&C 104:17) that the Lord has provided for our advantage in this world than it does the actual Gospel of Christ. For one thing, it is much more limited in scope than the Gospel, which has unlimited application.

[zerinus]

At the very least I think the mods have made clear that equating or linking in any way faithfulness or lack of to the gospel with any political party is inappropriate.

Sorry for the delay in replying. My home-teachers came for a visit, and he had brought his new toy along--and Android tablet--which we spent more time discussing than the gospel! I agree; but it seems to me that threads have been shut down on the grounds of being "political," which do not cross that red line.

[ERayR]

The ultimate authority in the US is "We the people". Not Popes, Prophets, or Ministers of religion. or the Divine Right of Kings.

The greatest problem We the People have is to keep the politicians, presidents, other major and minor officials and special interest groups from usurping this authority.

Edited April 27, 2012 by ERayR

[zerinus]

There are wise and good men with terrible political ideas and dishonest and scheming men who present some tremendous political ideas.

You did not read that scripture I quoted very carefully did you:

D&C 98:

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

[zerinus]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is set forth by the Savior Himself in 3 Nephi 27:13-22. I see no politics in it, but as with all things, His Gospel has application in politics.

From Wikipedia, politics is “the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments… It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.”

I do not believe Christ uses art or science in running His kingdom. 3 Nephi 27:13-22 clearly indicates that He follows the Father’s will, law, justice and judgment, agency, covenants, and work (consistent with D&C 88:13 and 34). I think His use of power is a far superior method than art and science, which, while quite valuable to us, only reflect human learning and are part of our accountability, testing and development in the process through which we may eventually arise to His stature through grace. All earthly governments will eventually give way to His Kingdom, which is not of this world and which doesn't run on politics.

This takes nothing away from the inspired US Constitution, but the Constitution falls more in line with the other bounty (which must be shared—D&C 104:17) that the Lord has provided for our advantage in this world than it does the actual Gospel of Christ. For one thing, it is much more limited in scope than the Gospel, which has unlimited application.

You don't seem to be addressing my OP. If we discuss D&C 98:8-10 on this board, including its practical application in the forthcoming US general election, are we discussing politics or are we discussing the gospel?

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

True. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

[Mark Beesley]

The gospel is not entirely apolitical. The Constitution, for example, we are told by revelation, is an inspired document; which is political. It is a political instrument for the creation of the United States. It is impossible to discuss the Constitution without being political, or discussing politics. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has also counselled the Saints how to vote:

D&C 98:

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

That is basically telling the Saints how to vote. It is gospel doctrine, but also politics. It is impossible to discuss this scripture without being political. I actually like to discuss this scripture (including its practical application in the upcoming US general election), because it is part of the commandment of the Lord to the Saints which they are required to keep. Are we allowed to discuss the gospel in this forum or are we not? I am curious what the answer to this question is going to be.

The scriptures tell us what to look for in candidates. They don't tell us who to vote for. I believe President Obama is an honest and wise man. I'm not particularly enamored with Romney's honesty. Arguing about why I'm right and someone else is wrong in our assessment of these men is the type of partisan politics that the Board eschews.

I read the scriptures and conclude that we should not complain about taxes and government programs that are intended to aid the poor. Others read the scriptures differently. But beyond relying on scriptural reference for support of the varying opinions, the discussions invarialy lead down the path of made-up statistics and imagined threats, This is the politics of fear that the Board seems to eschew.

Anyway, what kinds of political questions are you wanting to discuss?

[Mark Beesley]

ERayR:

True. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

Not true. The price of liberty is faithfully worshiping Jesus Christ. Do that, and everything else will take care of itself.

[ERayR]

Not true. The price of liberty is faithfully worshiping Jesus Christ. Do that, and everything else will take care of itself.

I think your view is a trifle simplistic.

[Mark Beesley]

I think your view is a trifle simplistic.

Thank you.

[zerinus]

The scriptures tell us what to look for in candidates. They don't tell us who to vote for. I believe President Obama is an honest and wise man. I'm not particularly enamored with Romney's honesty. Arguing about why I'm right and someone else is wrong in our assessment of these men is the type of partisan politics that the Board eschews.

I read the scriptures and conclude that we should not complain about taxes and government programs that are intended to aid the poor. Others read the scriptures differently. But beyond relying on scriptural reference for support of the varying opinions, the discussions invarialy lead down the path of made-up statistics and imagined threats, This is the politics of fear that the Board seems to eschew.

Anyway, what kinds of political questions are you wanting to discuss?

Thank you. In general I agree. The point I wanted to discuss, as stated in the OP, relates to D&C 98:8-10, and its practical application in the next general election in the US. My take on that scripture is that people should vote for the candidate of their choice on the basis of individual merit, rather than on the basis of their party political affiliation. That is the message that I seem to be getting from D&C 98:8-10. For example, at the next election the choice is likely to be between Obama (Democrat), and Romney (Republican/Mormon). My reading of D&C 98:8-10 leads me to the conclusion that the Lord advises Church members to vote for the candidate of their choice on the basis of individual merit, rather than which political party they belong to (or worse still, which religion they belong to). I think that many LDS seem to be too hung up on which party a candidate belongs to, rather than weighing a candidate's individual merit, which seems to me to be contrary to the counsel of the Lord. In American history there have been great Presidents who have been Republicans, as well as great Presidents who have been Democrat (the reverse being true also). Therefore the counsel of the Lord seems to be best, to strive to vote on the basis of individual merit rather than party political affiliation. That is how I read D&C 98:8-10. I like to know what others think.

[CV75]

You don't seem to be addressing my OP. If we discuss D&C 98:8-10 on this board, including its practical application in the forthcoming US general election, are we discussing politics or are we discussing the gospel?

I know -- just wanted to get the basics of where I am coming from undesrtood.

I think the counsel in the revelation is gospel, and its practical application can be as political as one makes it.

When we discuss our personal application of the counsel to specific candidates so as to argue over who is the more or most honest, wise and good, the discussion clearly becomes political since we use the arts and sciences in such competitive debate, rather than Spirit. Since the counsel is otherwise, or to only seek out those who are honest, wise and good (and I would add by using the Golden Rule--judge as we would be judged--as an overarching principle).

So I think in light of the scriptural counsel, such discussions should be as inviting of the Spirit as any other area of godly walk and conversation, otherwise they become political.

[zerinus]

I know -- just wanted to get the basics of where I am coming from undesrtood.

I think the counsel in the revelation is gospel, and its practical application can be as political as one makes it.

I think I would put that differently. I would say that the gospel and politics have a point of contact at which they overlap. When you are within that overlapping boundary, you are doing politics and practising or applying the gospel at the same time. It is not either-or, but doing both at the same time.

When we discuss our personal application of the counsel to specific candidates so as to argue over who is the more or most honest, wise and good, the discussion clearly becomes political since we use the arts and sciences in such competitive debate, rather than Spirit. Since the counsel is otherwise, or to only seek out those who are honest, wise and good (and I would add by using the Golden Rule--judge as we would be judged--as an overarching principle).

So I think in light of the scriptural counsel, such discussions should be as inviting of the Spirit as any other area of godly walk and conversation, otherwise they become political.

The implication of that is that one cannot do politics and be gospel centred at the same time. Doing politics and having a "godly walk and conversation" is mutually exclusive. One cannot do both at the same time. I Don't agree. I think it is possible to do politics, or discuss the subject, while having a "godly walk and conversation" at the same time.

Returning to the subject of my OP, however, as I said in my previous post, I believe that one implication of D&C 98:8-10 is that Latter-day Saints should not vote along party-political lines, but on the basis of the individual merit of the candidates--which for the most part they do not appear to follow. If you look at the color-coded political map of the United Stated, you will find that Utah is heavily painted Republican. That means that the majority of the Mormons in Utan consistently vote Republican, which implies that the individual merit of the candidates is not given much consideration, if any. That is pretty brainless, as well as being contrary to the counsel the the Lord has given.

Another purpose of my OP was to discuss how the "no politics" rule on a forum such as this can be moderated successfully. Politics is a grey area which overlaps with many other areas of human thought and endeavour. If you interpret that rule too rigidly, then you exclude a lot of other legitimate discussions including the gospel. So perhaps the rule should be more specific to outline what kinds of political discussions are permissible, and what kinds are not. I think that this lack of clarity has led to a lot of inconsistency in moderator decisions. For example, I tried to discuss D&C 98:8-10 and its practical implications in another thread, but the thread was promptly shut down on the grounds that it was becoming political.

[LDS_RM]

I agree that the D&C verses suggest individual character and ignore party affiliation. Party affiliation provide nothing more than a terribly superficial insight. Does every member of the GOP support unrestricted access to all types of firearms? Does every Democrat support abortion on demand regardless of trimester. As political discussions inane board which restricts politics; I support that. There are too many members of the LDS Church who openly judge others based on political affliation. Secondly, this is an international board, with members of all sorts of political parties. Personally when I come to a LDS religious setting, the only politics that matter are that on day Christ will reign again on earth. If a person wants to discuss politics there are plenty of other places to discuss politics.