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

[altersteve]

If by "ours" you mean the United States, then no, the Book of Mormon does not mention a republic like ours. The United States is a constitutional republic, which I don't see mentioned in the Book of Mormon anywhere.

[Stargazer]

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

You wrote:

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'm not sure where you're going with this, then. Your observation is that Mormons in Utah vote along party lines and do not consider individual candidates. Your observation appears to be superficial -- the choice of who to vote for must not be solely according to whatever personal factors you find attractive, i.e. candidate A is gooder and wiser than candidate B, but must also rest on public policy positions. Voting along party political liines can either be someone voting that way because their family has always been Republican (or Democrat), or because someone considers that a particular party platform best corresponds with their own sense of morality. There is not an easy way to distinguish this when considering people in a group, such as "Mormons in Utah".

[zerinus]

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

1 Nephi 22:

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

This is one among many.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

Incorrect the Democratic Party platform is Choice.

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education, which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs."

— from the 2008 Democratic National Platform: Renewing America's Promise

A summary of Roe v Wade

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.^[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."^[2]

^{The Libertarain Party Platform on Abortion}

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.

The REPUBLICAN PLATFORM is Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

"Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life. We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement.

We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives."

— from the 2008 Republican Platform

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

That the BoM is the template for the modern American republic, or even the British one.

[Log]

1 Nephi 22:

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

This is one among many.

I was clarifying TSS's CFR request; however, your citation is insufficient to meet his CFR - there is no mention of a republic like ours in the citation you've provided.

I'll let him take up his argument - I was just trying to save time here.

[zerinus]

You wrote:

I'm not sure where you're going with this, then. Your observation is that Mormons in Utah vote along party lines and do not consider individual candidates. Your observation appears to be superficial -- the choice of who to vote for must not be solely according to whatever personal factors you find attractive, i.e. candidate A is gooder and wiser than candidate B, but must also rest on public policy positions. Voting along party political liines can either be someone voting that way because their family has always been Republican (or Democrat), or because someone considers that a particular party platform best corresponds with their own sense of morality. There is not an easy way to distinguish this when considering people in a group, such as "Mormons in Utah".

I agree; but when a pattern is observed over many years and generations, it is possible to arrive at general conclusions.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

That the BoM is the template for the modern American republic, or even the British one.

I said nothing about "templates," and neither did you. You asked if it was "mentioned," and I said that it was.

Edited April 29, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I was clarifying TSS's CFR request; however, your citation is insufficient to meet his CFR - there is no mention of a republic like ours in the citation you've provided.

I believe that the scripture cited refers (prophetically) to the United States, therefore it is referring to "a republic like ours" (assuming that by that is meant the United States).

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

It doesn't even do that. The US didn't scatter their seed.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

It doesn't even do that. The US didn't scatter their seed.

It did.

[altersteve]

Zerinus:

It doesn't even do that. The US didn't scatter their seed.

Oh yes it did.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

Incorrect. The conquest of BoM lands was over and complete nearly three hundred years before the US came into existence. It was the US independence from Britian that motivate the peoples of the BoM lands to revolt against the Spanish and French occupation of their lands.

[thesometimesaint]

altersteve:

No., it didn't see above.

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

Incorrect. The conquest of BoM lands was over and complete nearly three hundred years before the US came into existence. It was the US independence from Britian that motivate the peoples of the BoM lands to revolt against the Spanish and French occupation of their lands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

[Log]

http://en.wikipedia....can_Indian_Wars

Am I to understand you hold to a North American - specifically, United States - geography for the Book of Mormon?

[zerinus]

Am I to understand you hold to a North American - specifically, United States - geography for the Book of Mormon?

I identify the American Indians as the "seed" of Lehi.

[Log]

I identify the American Indians as the "seed" of Lehi.

That's not specific enough. Do you solely identify those Native Americans who were living in the territorial US as the "seed" of Lehi?

[zerinus]

That's not specific enough. Do you solely identify those Native Americans who were living in the territorial US as the "seed" of Lehi?

I identify the "Native Americans who were living in the territorial US" as the seed of Lehi. That is all that is required for the fulfilment of the prophecy.

[Log]

I identify the "Native Americans who were living in the territorial US" as the seed of Lehi. That is all that is required for the fulfilment of the prophecy.

TSS points out that the prophecy was fulfilled prior to the Indian Wars you cite; is he wrong, on your view, and if so, how? Because, if he's right, the prophecy need not refer to the US at all.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

TSS points out that the prophecy was fulfilled prior to the Indian Wars you cite; is he wrong, on your view, and if so, how? Because, if he's right, the prophecy need not refer to the US at all.

The North American Indians were "scattered" by the US. That is enough for the fulfilment of the prophecy.

[Log]

The North American Indians were "scattered" by the US. That is enough for the fulfilment of the prophecy.

So, you're not going to answer the question. Ok. That's the end of my participation in this conversation. Have a blessed Sabbath.

[ERayR]

Stargazer:

Incorrect the Democratic Party platform is Choice.

As long as you agree with the Democratic Party. Otherwise its all for controlling you so you won't disagree.

[zerinus]

So, you're not going to answer the question. Ok. That's the end of my participation in this conversation. Have a blessed Sabbath.

Your question has been answered.

[CV75]

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.

“There are no politics in the Church of the Firstborn” is irrelevant except to those that expect to live in the Church of the Firstborn.

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:

It seems that “general observation” is what the mods do and must be part of how they make their decisions about whether a thread is becoming political or not.

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 don’t think this means that those populations that tend to vote in members of a particular political party are favoring the party and not the candidate based on his honesty, goodness and wisdom and that this in turn means they are running contrary to God’s will to seek out the honest, good and wise. Too much of a stretch in my opinion.

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.

Joseph Smith said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." Maybe you just need more political savvy in dealing with this board!