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

[zerinus]

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.

Thank you for your comments. I am still unclear though whether D&C 98:8-10 is a legitimate subject of discussion on the forum or not.

[LDS_RM]

I would hope an official board answer is not given. My personal opinion is that once a poster attempts to use this board to advocate for a particular politician, then that poster has crossed the line. This board is for the discussion of LDS topics. The are good people who are not LDS, those good people are also in politics. What is your end desire? It seems you want more than to discuss the verse, but may want to promote a particular person. I think you are spot on about what the verse means, and we LDS should do a better job at considering an individual.

[zerinus]

I would hope an official board answer is not given.

I was interested in your opinion, not the moderators. They are free to express their opinions too if they want to.

My personal opinion is that once a poster attempts to use this board to advocate for a particular politician, then that poster has crossed the line. This board is for the discussion of LDS topics. The are good people who are not LDS, those good people are also in politics. What is your end desire? It seems you want more than to discuss the verse, but may want to promote a particular person. I think you are spot on about what the verse means, and we LDS should do a better job at considering an individual.

I have my opinions about individual candidates, as I am sure everybody else does; but I started this thread in order to discuss D&C 98:8-10, and its practical application. I think it is a doctrine that is ignored, overlooked, or disregarded by many LDS (especially Utah LDS), and therefore worthy of serious discussion.

[skippy740]

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.

I am a moderator on another LDS forum. We discuss politics, but not political candidates. We discuss various societal issues. We discuss various aspects of politics.

The problem can become when some posters want to quote scriptures to "bash" the other person's viewpoint.

BTW, that is not the only scripture in reference to politics. The Book of Mormon is FULL of scriptures regarding leaders of the land. One always comes to mind is King Benjamin - how he labored diligently so he might not bring burdensome taxes among his people! There is MUCH more than just this. In my opinion, if one studies the scriptures, and applies the lessons to our lives, it becomes clear for various issues how we should vote.

These links are various topics that I started on that other forum on some of the bigger issues. My intention was to learn how others think about these issues and how they view the scriptures to help support their views. I haven't read the threads in a while, but for these discussions, it was more opinion than scripture study.

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/39507-gospel-centered-political-view-series-redistribution-charity.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/39513-gospel-centered-political-view-series-big-small-government.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/39511-gospel-centered-political-view-series-abortion.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/39512-gospel-centered-political-view-series-definition-marriage.html

[zerinus]

BTW, that is not the only scripture in reference to politics. The Book of Mormon is FULL of scriptures regarding leaders of the land.

I have no doubt that there are many verses of scripture that have political application, one way or another. My aims were very modest. I was, and still am, interested in discussing that one passage of scripture which I had quoted, and its doctrinal implications for LDS, especially in the current political climate (and taking into consideration past LDS voting patterns), and deciding how best LDS can apply the doctrines taught in these verses in deciding how they weigh up and elect the political candidate of their choice.

[Calm]

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.

Possibly, but it also might mean that the individuals running have comparable individual merit and if so, then there is nothing wrong even by the scriptures you cite by then choosing the man whose political views match yours.

If there are also more Republicans in the state you also have a larger pool of candidates to draw from and therefore more individuals of high merit in the pool that are available to be chosen (whether they are or not is another thing), so that could be another reason why Republicans are voted for more than Democrats.

It is also possible that people vote a mixture of politics and merit, so that while they take into account merit it is not the highest priority to them, they view things like political competence and ability to function in social settings, etc. as having value as well, perhaps as much value as individual merit. They may reason that if a good man is a lousy politician no one benefits and so they look at more than one measure in choosing a candidate.

There are too many variables in my opinion as to why people choose their candidate to make a blanket statement as you have done without doing any actual research.

Edited April 28, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Possibly, but it also might mean that the individuals running have comparable individual merit and if so, then there is nothing wrong even by the scriptures you cite by then choosing the man whose political views match yours.

If there are also more Republicans in the state you also have a larger pool of candidates to draw from and therefore more individuals of high merit in the pool that are available to be chosen (whether they are or not is another thing), so that could be another reason why Republicans are voted for more than Democrats.

* * *

There are too many variables in my opinion as to why people choose their candidate to make a blanket statement as you have done without doing any actual research.

I think it is reasonable to say, from past observation, that Mormons in Utah generally tend to vote along party political lines (i.e. Republican), rather than weighing up individual candidates' merits disregarding their party political affiliations. I suppose it is conceivable in the realms of hypothesis that Republican politicians consistently turn out to be better candidates for office than Democrats; but I have my doubts about that.

It is also possible that people vote a mixture of politics and merit, so that while they take into account merit it is not the highest priority to them, they view things like political competence and ability to function in social settings, etc. as having value as well, perhaps as much value as individual merit. They may reason that if a good man is a lousy politician no one benefits and so they look at more than one measure in choosing a candidate.

I include all of those positive attributes as part of a person's "individual merit;" and so does the Lord in those verses that I had quoted.

[Log]

I am a moderator on another LDS forum. We discuss politics, but not political candidates. We discuss various societal issues. We discuss various aspects of politics.

You know, I was getting all excited about finding another "orthodox" board on the net, but your board no longer allows political discussions, and hasn't for a while, according to its Terms Of Use, which I read completely through.

I may show up there soon, though. Thanks for the tip!

[thesometimesaint]

Mark Beesley:

Considering the history of "Christian" nations. Faithfullness is to any religion, especially the "Christian" ones the last thing this country needs.

[zerinus]

Mark Beesley:

Considering the history of "Christian" nations. Faithfullness is to any religion, especially the "Christian" ones the last thing this country needs.

Looking at it another way, It is adherence to Christian values (in general) that has made Christian nations (especially the United States) great. Deviation from those values can spell disaster for Christian nations; which is already becoming evident in European countries in particular.

[BCSpace]

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.

There is no line between doctrine and politics as the one is a reflection of belief in the other. Alas, we are not allowed to discuss the gospel in that context on this board which is partly why this board falls well short of greatness as LDS boards go.

[BCSpace]

Looking at it another way, It is adherence to Christian values (in general) that has made Christian nations (especially the United States) great. Deviation from those values can spell disaster for Christian nations; which is already becoming evident in European countries in particular.

That is correct. The BoM tells us that we must serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, or be swept off. (Ether 2:9-10). We are not serving that God unless we not only believe but practice the doctrine.

[CV75]

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.

This is correct. There are no politics in the Church of the Firstborn. They are part of the dynamics of a fallen world. The counsel in D&C 98 is akin to the counsel for self-sufficiency in the dynamics of all the ills that can befall us. In the Church of the Firstborn, self-sufficiency is accomplished in an entirely different manner.

The counsel is to seek honest, wise and good government leaders. The line of sight is often blurred by the contention of political discourse. Yet we seek by the resources we have available, including spiritual discernment (like any other problem-solving process and decision).

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.

Yes, I agree that we should not vote along party lines where voting and parties are permitted, just as we should seek honest, wise and good leaders where such a process is permitted (or where there are such people to find!).

Personally, I think judging an entire state or religious group as out of alignment with inspired counsel (based on their voting record) is more a political endeavor than a sociological or gospel-oriented spiritual one. This is why I really haven’t much to say about what Utah saints are or are not doing. The Lord’s counsel is clear on the matter, and if a certain threshold is reached where they need to be called to repentance (like the financial scheme/fraud issues), I trust that their leaders will do so. Who is to say that the voters have not sought the honest, wise and good among them, or admit that they haven’t? Isn’t everyone by and large doing their best?

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.

I can’t speak to the issue about the moderators’ interpretation of what is political. I would say in order to keep discussion from being political, we would have to stick to general principles and not use specific politcal examples.

[thesometimesaint]

CV 75

Agreed.

Edited April 29, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

A republic like ours is nowhere mentioned in the BoM.

[zerinus]

This is correct. There are no politics in the Church of the Firstborn. They are part of the dynamics of a fallen world. The counsel in D&C 98 is akin to the counsel for self-sufficiency in the dynamics of all the ills that can befall us. In the Church of the Firstborn, self-sufficiency is accomplished in an entirely different manner.

That may or may not be the case; I wouldn't know. But since we are currently living within that "fallen world," and the commandments we receive from the Lord are applicable to how we live in that fallen world, that observation seems somewhat irrelevant.

The counsel is to seek honest, wise and good government leaders. The line of sight is often blurred by the contention of political discourse. Yet we seek by the resources we have available, including spiritual discernment (like any other problem-solving process and decision).

But still, we are commanded to seek.

Yes, I agree that we should not vote along party lines where voting and parties are permitted, just as we should seek honest, wise and good leaders where such a process is permitted (or where there are such people to find!).

The commandment obviously applies to where such process is permitted. Where it is permitted, then good men have an obligation to make themselves available to be elected. Experience seems to show that the process generally works. "Good" and "wise" are relative. Nobody is perfectly good or perfectly wise.

Personally, I think judging an entire state or religious group as out of alignment with inspired counsel (based on their voting record) is more a political endeavor than a sociological or gospel-oriented spiritual one. This is why I really haven’t much to say about what Utah saints are or are not doing. The Lord’s counsel is clear on the matter, and if a certain threshold is reached where they need to be called to repentance (like the financial scheme/fraud issues), I trust that their leaders will do so. Who is to say that the voters have not sought the honest, wise and good among them, or admit that they haven’t? Isn’t everyone by and large doing their best?

Well, it is possible to make general observation, without saying anything about individuals. For example, the Lord says, ". . . speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" (D&C 1:30). So it is possible to make a general observation about a population, without passing judgement on them individually. In the Book of Mormon we read:

Mosiah 29:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

So if the majority of the people of the state voted in favor of gay marriages for example, I think it would be reasonable to argue that the majority of the people are out of alignment with the will of God--without passing judgement on individuals.

I can’t speak to the issue about the moderators’ interpretation of what is political. I would say in order to keep discussion from being political, we would have to stick to general principles and not use specific politcal examples.

The problem with that is that general principles, if not clear, can lead to double standards, or inconsistent moderator decisions. "No political discussion," without adequate qualification, is too vague or general to provide moderators with sufficient guidelines to avoid making inconsistent decisions.

Edited April 29, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

BCSpace:

A republic like ours is nowhere mentioned in the BoM.

I was not able to contextualize that comment; but a "republic like ours" is mentioned in the BoM.

[altersteve]

Duplicate.

Edited April 29, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

I see no separation between my religious views and my political views. They're really the same thing. What I believe politically is because of what I believe religiously. Maybe in conversation or when teaching someone about the gospel I'll leave politics out of it, but in my own mind I don't really draw a line at all. I feel great spiritual peace and joy when I think about how great this nation is, and I have political views that, to me, would best uphold the greatness of the United States of America. She is, after all, a land of promise.

[zerinus]

Post error.

Edited April 29, 2012 by zerinus

[Stargazer]

I think it is reasonable to say, from past observation, that Mormons in Utah generally tend to vote along party political lines (i.e. Republican), rather than weighing up individual candidates' merits disregarding their party political affiliations. I suppose it is conceivable in the realms of hypothesis that Republican politicians consistently turn out to be better candidates for office than Democrats; but I have my doubts about that.

I include all of those positive attributes as part of a person's "individual merit;" and so does the Lord in those verses that I had quoted.

Why do you think that Mormons in Utah do not weigh individual candidates merits? Just because they tend to vote predominantly Republican does not mean that they don't consider individual merit. There are some LDS who largely support Democratic party politicians. There are some LDS who are Democratic party politicians, for that matter. Are you going to accuse them too of not considering the individual candidates? They've decided that the Democratic party best represents their philosophical outlook. Regardless of my personal agreement with either choice, the point is that it is not necessarily one aspect of candidates (goodness and honesty) that should be considered. WHAT do they advocate for? A good and honest and wise man may nevertheless make a bad choice as to what is acceptable public policy.

Just an example not at random: abortion. The Democratic Party's platform (and the Libertarian one, for that matter) is to permit pretty much unrestricted abortion on demand at any time during a pregnancy. The Republican Party platform is to restrict this in certain ways. Take your pick as to which one you consider moral. Don't stop there, though, but consider the platform of each party on matters that you consider important, and then, once you have gathered a good spectrum of policy, you can then judge whether one platform is preferable to another. Then the candidate who advocates for that platform, who also happens to be honest and good, should be your choice in the election.

If the Utah Saints generally choose candidates advocating for the Republican party platform, the perhaps they tend to agree that the Republican party platform and the candidates who support it are the best ones to vote for. If you're only going to look at the relative goodness and honesty of individual candidates, without considering their positions on issues, what happens to your vote? And what happens to public policy, too?

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

CFR

[zerinus]

Why do you think that Mormons in Utah do not weigh individual candidates merits? . . .

I was making a general observation, not commenting on specific issues.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

CFR

CFR for what?

[Log]

CFR for what?

For the idea that a republic, like ours, is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.