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

[zerinus]

“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.

I meant relevant to the discussion we are having.

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.

Except that when the rules are not clear, it can lead to inconsistent moderator decisions. I have already given you one example in post #24. As I mentioned in that post, I tried to discuss this very same subject in another thread, but it was closed down on the grounds that it was political. Now I am discussing it in this thread, and it hasn't been closed down! That is an example of inconsistent moderator decision. I am not blaming this on the mods; I am blaming it on the rules. Where the rules are not clear, it is likely to lead to inconsistent moderator decisions.

I will give you another example. Around three years ago, when Romney was put out of the race during the Republican Primaries, and eventually Obama won the Presidency, I wrote a piece in my Blog explaining how I believe the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party conspired (successfully) to put Romney out of the race, and thus effectively scuppered the chances of a Republican victory in the last general election. That post was completely non-political or non-partisan, in the sense that it did not favor one party over another, or one political candidate over another. I did not argue in that post that Romney was better than Obama, or Obama was better than Romney. Neither did I argue that the Republican party is better than Democrat, or the reverse. It was completely apolitical from that point of view. The focus of the discussion was entirely on how the Evangelicals conspired (successfully) to put Romney out of the race. But when I tried to discuss it on this forum, it was promptly shut down, and the thread deleted, on the grounds of being political. In the end I was obliged to go and discuss it in some other forum. Now in my opinion that was unjustified, because it was not really political in the sense that it should have been disallowed. Again, I am not blaming this on the mods; I am blaming it on the rules. If the rule is not clear, that is going to be the result.

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.

I think this has already been discussed, and adequately answered, by me as well as others. No additional comment seems necessary.

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

"Correct principles" means good rules, not bad rules. A rule that is unclear, and leads to inconsistent moderator decisions, is a bad rule, and therefore does not classify under "correct principles" that Joseph Smith was talking about. The rule of "no political discussion," without clarifying what is political and what is not, is unclear or ambiguous, and likely to lead to inconsistent moderator decisions; therefore it is not a good rule. As Paul said, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle" (1 Corinthians 14:8 ). If the rules are not clear, the moderators cannot be blamed for making inconsistent decisions.

Edited April 30, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

I meant relevant to the discussion we are having.

But once we appeal to an understanding of scripture as part of the discussion, then it is relevant.

As for ther rest of your post, for some reason, the mods aren't answering your question, which might give you a measure with which to gague your voluntary application of a correct principle as far as this board is concerned.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

I'm not a Democrat, a Republican, or a Libertarian. In fact I don't agree with everything of any political party. The closest would be the Green Party but even that is far away from where I stand.

BTW; I posted the three platforms of the three major political parties in this general election, and a summary of USSC decisions on the issue. I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed with any of them.

[Carborendum]

Zerinus,

I'm confused. The OP went in three directions. And after three pages, we've wandered into a discussion that seems to be off topic.

Title: Where do we draw the line?

Scriptural reference: Vote for honest and wise men.

Question: Are we allowed to discuss politics?

As to the title, I don't think there is a "line" of separation. One blends into the other. Just look at D&C 134. It is a religious position on government. Is that not religion influencing political views regarding the proper role of government?

Scriptural reference: I can't tell you how many people I've listened to on both sides that insist up and down that their guy is honest and wise, while the other guy...not so much. I don't think a great percentage of the population can look past politics or party to see the truth.

Question: That is a question for the moderators.

[zerinus]

But once we appeal to an understanding of scripture as part of the discussion, then it is relevant.

As for ther rest of your post, for some reason, the mods aren't answering your question, which might give you a measure with which to gague your voluntary application of a correct principle as far as this board is concerned.

That observation can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that they reason why they haven't replied is because they don't have a good answer to give! Another possible reason might be that they are learning as much from the thread as we are, and they don't want to prejudice the outcome by unnecessary moderator intervention.

As far as I am concerned, however, my primary purpose in starting this thread was to discuss D&C 98:8-10, which I had been prevented from doing in another thread; therefore my purpose has been accomplished. The rest is icing on the cake!

[CV75]

That observation can be a double-edged sword. It could be argued that they reason why they haven't replied is because they don't have a good answer to give! Another possible reason might be that they are learning as much from the thread as we are, and they don't want to prejudice the outcome by unnecessary moderator intervention.

As far as I am concerned, however, my primary purpose in starting this thread was to discuss D&C 98:8-10, which I had been prevented from doing in another thread; therefore my purpose has been accomplished. The rest is icing on the cake!

What I think is interesting is that, to a degree, by participating on this board, members are voluntarily submitting to governance by those they may not entirely understand or agree with--sounds a lot like what often happens when casting a vote!

The thread probably wasn't shut down for discussing D&C 98 per se, or even your post, but for all the stuff circulating around it.

Edited May 1, 2012 by CV75