Since the board rules here started allowing some political discussion, maybe we can have a healthy discussion on the issue and how it should be applied? Religious issues often become political issues. From a discussion in a different thread, one poster suggested that moderation should lead us in certain directions when it comes to political issues because similar politics in a mormon context proved to be harmful (I paraphrased there). My opinion differed. I hope that poster wasn't saying that moderation should nudge us toward liberalism because all of those bastards who lead the mormon church seem to be conservatives. You can identify with either party (or from any of many other political parties outside of the US), and still have valid opinions that are worthy of attack-free discussion.

I hope that the moderators can indulge this discussion with the goal of making this board a safer place for people to discuss their beliefs without being attacked or deleted. If we can use specific political beliefs as examples only, instead of as a platfform, perhaps some common ground can be found in how other discussions should be feamed going forward.

Note to moderators: my goal here is to empower your difficult task of moderating, by trying to define what others see as healthy rules upon which to state their beliefs.

For an opening question: Should the moderators allow their own political beliefs to help direct, which politically oriented posts stay and which ones get deleted? If yes, let's try to speak in terms of healthy discussion, not on the use of words like censorship, or legal rights (which don't apply here anyway). If no, then where should the healthy boundries be?

"Healthy Discussion about Politics..."

I would prefer a "Healthy Discussion about why all you freaking Democrats can't see what a great job Trump is doing by being as unpresidential as possilbe".

Or something like that...


Okay, now That was fun!!

This is the same reply that I posted on getting politics off RFM


In my arrogant and immodest opinion religion and politics are inexorably entwined due to the fact that human beings are involved. You cannot separate them and have a viable discussion. For years I have wondered when this forum would acknowledge this and realize that recovery necessitates the recognition and evaluation of both. Again IN MY "UNHUMBLE" OPINION



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 07:26PM by thedesertrat1.

As a socialist I have no time for so called liberals and conservatives. But you Americans think we're the bogeyman, when instead we don't like being exploited all the time by the rich.

How about you stop spewing your right wing crap. Tell us about this "liberalism".

Since both officially approved parties in the USA are neoliberal, maybe folk need to rethink what "liberal" means.

"spewing right wing crap..."

In all (mostly) seriousness, one sees one's opponents as being spewers of crap, while believing with all sincerity that what one utters is wonderous, nurturing and of the highest quality.


I am sincerely grateful that I am not political.

But you do have views on issues that others consider political.

Which is absolutely fine.

More than fine, in fact: ethically essential.

AZSteve,

I agree with the spirit of your post.

I would, less importantly, state up front that when a religion has some nefarious teachings (on race, gender, sexual identity, the utility of truth, etc.), those teachings do not gain greater credibility simply because a political party espouses them. I think that is an important point.

Recovery from Mormonism ineluctably requires addressing some of those issues. A change in national political dialogue in either direction does not mean that certain views suddenly become morally acceptable. It is perfectly appropriate for people to adhere to the same positions even as the dominant view changes.

I say that as someone whose politics are a lot more complicated than people on this board believe.

This whole topic seems to be a result more of gaslighting by both parties in the US, at least. To top it all off, there are people on all sides, some of which are more skilled than others at filtering out the BS, and/or passing it on to others. But underneath it, there should remain a culture of respect and consistancy.

Whether or not someone choses to watch CNN or FOX to get their news, shouldn't be an excuse to heap disrespect on them. That disrespect can come from a rude comment, in the form of a whole rude chain (enforced by groupthink), or in the form of an unreasonably deleted post. If you raise your kids with inconsistant rules and sporatic enforcement, they will fight eachother and they will hate you and disrespect you too.

At the same time (and in another chain) Lot's wife pointed out that more extreme political thought (such as bashing LGBT people and oppressing women) can not and should not be tolerated. I agree with her on that. I think that the key as to whether RFM simply exists, shrinks, or thrives, depends largely on the public policy positions they take, on how consistantly they apply them. The answer however isn't as easy as I initially thought.

Ideas anyone?

Yup. It's the old right wing "they both do it" excuse. No. They both don't do it. Just more of your insane right wing crap again.

And now tell us about all those democrat school shooters.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2018 05:30PM by Dave the Atheist.

As you know, Dave, you and I share a lot of views. I also have felt in the past that AZSteve can be pretty dismissive of liberal views (as I have no doubt been about views I disfavor).

In this thread, though, he is suggesting a more open and patient discussion. I don't know if that is possible, but I think it is worth exploring.

I do not think anyone should suppress his or her opinions or his or her strong emotions. But ultimately the country needs to heal, and recognizing the importance of rebuilding community is an exercise with merit. I submit that that value should be respected even if primarily in the breach.

I do not understand how you could be so old and still so tribally blind at the same time.

Clinton did the great telecom give away and broke glass-stegal, just for a start.

Obama had a filibuster-proof Congress for two years and didn’t do a damn thing about gun control, just for a start.

Dems just spent two years screaming that Trump is the craziest, most dangerous President in history, and yet voted to enhance POTUS’s already near-limitless spying on American citizens and squashed Amash & Wyden’s attempt to at least have a debate.

Dems gave The military 160 billion MORE than what was even asked for this year (for context, Sanders’s free college proposal would cost 47 billion).

This kind of list could go on and on. And I didn’t even mention the Patriot Act and AUMF, or the attempt now to bring vast, far reaching censorship (because, Russia).

Dems don’t care about you, at all. They are loyal to you their donors, not you.

Dave, you are a victim of a corporate-captured duopoly, and you behave exactly as they want you to. If you ever want to have nice things for yourself and your countrymen, stop.

Human

The same goes for Human, too, and one reason I generally avoid the subject is I realize what it took for me to "unscramble" the stuff I was raised with (as a William F. Buckley conservative, and not one to pay a lot of attention to the "mafiosi sorts" that are passing themselves off as such these days; WFB's son, Christopher pretty much echoes my sentiments, and he was fired from the magazine his father founded when he endorsed Barack Obama. Buckley's successor, Rich Lowry, is a double-digit I.Q. "yes man" on his good days, seriously).

Frankly, what I see going on--and I have enough clinical experience to make that statement--is right is engaged in a lot of "pathological Machiavellian control," and they're far less honest than the left at "looking within."

Okay, enough; I'm overdue for a some anthropology and DNA stuff I've been meaning to post for weeks now.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Frankly, what I see going on--and I have enough
> clinical experience to make that statement--is
> right is engaged in a lot of "pathological
> Machiavellian control," and they're far less
> honest than the left at "looking within."


Respectfully disagree. I see equal amounts of "pathological
Machiavellian control” from both sides.

Also, when Obama won the right engaged in an honest self examination. The left hasn’t even remotely begun to do the same, because “Russia”.

Dem voters have to ask themselves not only how they even came close against a game show host (at best) let alone lose to him, but how they lost HUGE across the board down-ticket across the country. It was massive wipe-out.

See Certificate, Birth...

Too, when the Navy Seals took out Bin Laden, the righties were claiming it was 43's doing even though he was quoted as saying Bin Laden no longer interested him...

Alternative Facts Department: Perhaps the left doesn't have to engage in the sort of "introspection" you're arguing for because right now it's pretty close to objective reality.

Most of the faithful LDS are pretty right wing, and if I were agreeing with them on issues, I'd change my mind just on general principles.

And there it is. The faux news but-what-about-ism rears its ugly head once again.
Do right wingers have any original thoughts ?

I'm guessing that rounding up and jailing "right wingers" for the good of the nation is a good plan in your mind... Or maybe just limiting their rights via some means testing, so that they would not be able to vote against 'The Left'.

This garbage about being a Representative Republic just has to be done away with, for the good of the nation!

Is that anything like "lock her up" ?

Dave, *BOTH* parties in the USA are right wing. The Democrats are way to the right of many parties in other countries.

Putting aside actual actions, expressed beliefs, or political affiliation, I am pretty sure that all sides would like to achieve the same result. The main differences come from different beliefs in human nature and how to accomplish those ends within ethical limits. It's likely that my lack of understanding about some beliefs that others may be passionate about, may have contributed to the problem. If so, I'm sorry. I am learning here too.

I have been shocked at times, how verbally violent things get here on this board. I've taken part in it when I believed that I was in the right. See how well that works? (Not so much).

Perhaps RFM can put together a public policy group. With the volume of visitors that we have been told come here, I think that some level of written public policy, policy may be in order. And the disrespect issue should be more closely examined. These are just some ideas. Part of the reason I stayed away for a few months is that I didn't want to be exposed to the conflict here. That's not so good for a recovery board.

Like the disrespect you show by spewing right wing vomit ! You love to whine when you get called on it !

I apologized for spewing that 'right wing vomit' Dave. How about you?

Tell us about uranium one.

While everyone is distracted by right & left wing politics, Beyoncé or Drake, selfies & Facebook . . . I just put my head down and went like a madman to create the vision I had.

It’s wild to look back at all of the people engaged in nonsense that I navigated. Poor fools paid the price for not taking a look within. Oh well. I’m grooving and opening doors for others.

Don’t bite the bait too hard.

Having respect doesn't mean that we agree on our respective political positions. It just means that we treat eachother with respect, even if we agree to disagree. If you want to call my positions "right wing vomit" I can refer to your definition without needing to be offended. If I was insensitive when I spoke my mind, maybe I can find a better way to say it next time.

But with respect, I believe that Hillary should go to prison for her role in Uranium one. You don't sell a winning lottery ticket (uranium discovered on American soil) at face value. It's not like we needed the cash. Hell, we create more fiat money all the time than anything Russia paid us for the Uranium. How much is Hillary getting paid for her speeches now that she doesn't have any US government favors to give away in exchange? Respectfully.

yet more of your right wing dishonesty. I guess that is to be expected from faux news groupies.

If you think Hillary Clinton is left wing, you are closer to Ezra Taft Benson than you think! She is a neoliberal, supports tax avoidance by corporations, permanent war (like Obama whose presidency dropped 20,000 bombs on foreigners) etc. She also comes from a privileged educational background and takes money off millionaires. She is no left winger.

All this Russia stuff is just the military and secret services trying to justify their funding. It's not as if the USA didn't interfere with Russia when Yeltsin was in power in the nineties.

looks like the answer is NO....

The guidelines say political posts are allowed "as it relates to Mormonism/religion". There are boatloads of political discussion boards. Find one.

In 1977, as a freshman in college, I took Political Science 101. I thought it would be fun to argue principles of conservative / liberal.

Instead, I was taught the game of politics - you know, how to draw district boundaries to get the most votes, how to take surveys and tell people what they want to hear, how to give people free stuff, etc, in order to get elected.

That is pretty much politics. You offer the people a couple of gangs to join, and then they fight to defend theirs. It is alot like pro wrestling - it appears the two sides hate each other, but they are actually part of the same show.

You join a gang for security. So it sells well to fight somebody - makes people feel safe. Go bomb some country on the other side of the world. Also people want free stuff, so offer all the education, food, healthcare and housing they need. Because we care about them (and so do the corporations making bank on the programs and weapons systems, etc.).

As tribalists, we all need a group to cling to. That is how politics and religion operate the same. And that is why the strong tribalists, even if they quit church, can still cling to other gangs, like political party or ideology.

It was mentioned that LDS faithful are mostly right-wing. I used to think right wing meant those who favor more freedom and less government. But turns out the so-called conservatives like to spend alot of money, which requires that more money be taken from us by force, which is not freedom.

Right wingers claim to be against welfare, but increase its spending. Left wingers claim to be against military spending but increase its spending. So while pretending to be adversaries (makes for good TV drama and ratings), they work together to keep ramping up spending and milking the people.

We like them because like a casino, we win occasionally, and forget what is taken from us. Actually had a guy increase his tax withholding because his wife wanted a bigger check at tax time. She didn't understand it came from her money.

Budgets mean nothing. If funds are short, just have more money printed, and we'll pay for it all through inflation, and higher cost of living for the poor. Which few understand.

Anyway, right and left wingers have the same underlying philosophy - that government action is the answer to all our problems. Which is why so many LDS I know have government jobs, or vote for big spending "conservatives".

Discussion of principles would be useful, but the game of politics, which is mostly what is seen here, is pretty much just entertainment. Which is fine, I suppose, but boring after a while. Name-calling, etc, is basic animal, tribal behavior.

Now tell us how the government is just a big gang beating up on the little gangs and tell us how free you are. Next tell us about fiat money. Next tell us about how Paul Ryan is your god.

again....

looks like the answer is NO....

I was raised a democrat. My parents were democrats HERE IN UTAH. I married a republican. He is now extreme democrat. Instead of going more liberal since leaving mormonism, I've actually gone more midway for a few reasons. I hated Obama and never voted during those years as I didn't like the person running. I didn't vote during the Bush years either and people tell me I don't have a right to state my feelings if I don't vote. I voted them by NOT VOTING.

I'm rather shocked to read those exmormons who used to be conservative and now are so liberal.

I don't come back and read replies to my posts on these threads as I just don't have the energy to be upset by what someone spouts back at me. Let's just say I've been attacked about politics before. No point in going there. My mormon boyfriend/eventual missionary hung up the phone on me when he found out I voted for Jimmy Carter. I wonder which of you would vote for Jimmy Carter now and NEVER WOULD HAVE back then.

Liberalism is to the right of center in the USA. If a group derides working class people as "rednecks" and "trash" as some Democrats did at the last election, it is not left wing.

You think being a so called Liberal is tough in the church? I'm a socialist and have had to put up with all kinds of right wing shenanigans. I even dressed down a missionary for trying to say unemployed people were lazy in priesthood. I had to point out that I know some who apply for dozens of jobs a week or have health trouble.

This is all complex stuff. My guess is that more Mormons move in a liberal direction than the other way due to greater questioning of authority and perhaps to a willingness to take a fresh look at social issues that were "done deals" while in the church. But the movement is not unidirectional.

These are strange days. This may surprise some people, but I have never considered myself a Democrat or a Republican; parts of both agendas always seemed wrong to me, other parts right. There was a great deal of overlap, on the positive side, among people who I thought valued personal autonomy and limited state power over the economy and society.

I find myself transported into a fairly adamant position by recent events. If I had to track the evolution, I'd say that the GOP's southern strategy weakened the political center and started a long process of polarization. Then came the Citizens United decision, in which the supreme court effectively opened the financial floodgates, rendering both parties progressively more dependent on big money. I think a lot of people were lost in that process, deprived of the representation by either party that is crucial to a functional democracy.

The biggest factor in moving me from political neutrality to firmly committed is the rise of the new populism, a populism that in my view presents a threat to fundamental rights. I perceive the movement in part as an understandable result of the deterioration of the parties and their neglect of large and legitimate parts of the body politic: disenfranchised, Samson wants to bring down the temple.

Yet the effect of the new populism is to challenge what others might call the "deep state" but which seems to me to be the written and unwritten constitution, the latter comprising the manifestation over decades or centuries of how the written document is "practiced." My conviction on that point renders me more assertive with regard to the issues that are involved--race, gender, sexual identity, the emergence of a new elite that disregards established ethical standards---and which strike me as critically important.

Perhaps those topics are also galvanized among us by the degree to which they were central to the LDS experience. If one leaves Mormonism in part because of racial issues or misogyny, then the new populism and its relatively untrusting attitude towards diversity would rankle; if because of an elite that does not live by the rules, the new "mood" would offend.

We live in troubled times. In such situations people of goodwill contend aggressively. It can assuredly be painful so to engage, but the issues are critical to who we are, what our society is, what our children's world will look like. Call these things a temporal Plan of Salvation if you will, but we are discussing momentous subjects that naturally evoke a religious level of fervor.

Jimmy Carter? When I thought the parties were ideologically and substantively similar, I voted on the basis of probable competence. That wouldn't have been Carter. Today? I'd prefer something really radical: a Republican or Democratic centrist, someone who might with luck initiate the long and fraught process of reconstructing the political middle.

I get all the politics I can stand to handle on Twitter plus pictures and funny memes, plus (usually) more insight and intelligence in fewer words. What's the benefit of repeating it here for the millionth time?

Depends how you define politics - if it's in the narrow right wing sense of binary politics/two party systems then that's easy.

But look how many church related things are political - race issues, women's issues, gay rights, nepotism, tax free status, dealings with foreign governments, foreign aid. And I can think of some more... all this My party is great vs Mine is better, is just capitalist shadow boxing. Wall Street greed and low wages continue regardless.

I don't define it in a narrow binary sense and I don't think discussion should be limited to narrow party lines. There are a lot of issues that can be all over the spectrum.

I think Europe is a better model to follow these days, and it seems the US is becoming more like Europe in this sense, as the discussion gets more heated but also less binary and more complicated as we go along.

Maybe not you personally, but some people. I base my politics on what I think not one party and an opposing one.

Of course there are things to oppose. But I think the trouble in the USA is that they've turned politics into mud slinging. Instead of Clinton and Trump's personalities (neither of which I can stand), there should have been more discussion of what their policies were. Both share an implicit militarism (as does the LDS church), and would prefer to spend more on that and public surveillance than public education and reforming healthcare.

Long ago, Mormons and evangelicals were mostly Democrats then went Republican. Far right politics and religion are now one and the same.

What first comes to mind when you hear the word "Christian?"

Before 1980 or 1990, you might think "faithful," "kind," "compassionate," or "someone willing to help others."

Nowadays you are more likely to think "intolerant," "racist," "xenophobic," "hypocritical," or "evil."

Radical fringe ideology that was once thought to be so extreme that only neo-Nazi groups like the Order or The Covenant espoused it in public is now mainstream on the the right.

It staggers the imagination how someone could reason their way out of Mormonism and yet still fall victim to bizarre conspiracy theories or the denial of objective fact-based reality.

To me, all this adds up to one thing: fear.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14340542/white-fear-trump-psychology-minority-majority



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 07:45AM by anybody.

Jesus in the New Testament tells us to look after the poor and sick, and not to store up lots of money. These people can barely call themselves Christian if they are more interested in capitalism than Christianity.

On the flipside it angers me when non-Christians pigeonhole me as homophobic, racist, anti-women etc, because I go to church. I am none of those things. The LDS has form in those areas, but I've known openly gay Christians and female clergy... this is as much of a stereotype as anything.

most people on here dont even know what it means to discuss a topic. They think pigeonholing someone, distorting their ideas, insulting them, or reporting their comment is an actual discussion. I dont see RFM as a place to discuss ideas anymore because that doesnt seem like what people are about here. The typical RFMer just wants to find a group of people who will always agree with them and never disagree. They think that is discussing a topic.

But the ones who are make a lot more noise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 08:38AM by anybody.

In the modern US yes. In Latin America and the old.South Africa some of the loudest voices for reform were religious. MLK was a religious figure.

Three reasons in the US
* The religious right are better at making money than the religious left. They use it for broadcasting and buying off politicians.
* McCarthyism and Cold War stuff blackened the left as being Soviet agents. It purged rhem.
* Reagan let thrm take over the Republicans.

I've lost so much respect for partisan political posters who I used to hold in high esteem. Some of them read and listen to only one side of every issue when there are dozens of legitimate ways to see them.

Look at the post above mine if you need to see an example and scan the thread if you need more.

These posts often have no connection to mormonism and only slight ties to other religions. They are full of bias and contempt, no compassion, no open mindedness and certainly no authentic original thought.

Discussing politics has not worked out too well here. Religion itself is an emotionally charged topic. I don't know quite how to handle it other than allowing politics with the understanding if there are personal attacks or baiting others to create contention, then we as admins will delete as best we can. It can be highly subjective in removing offending posts, so not all will agree. I want us to stay on the topic of Recovery from Mormonism. Our traffic here is extraordinary now and we need to remember there are many who are hurting as they transition out of the corporation. We should be helping them and of course ourselves. That has always been our prime objective.

Perhaps the real question is ...

Who has been helped by this site?

And the converse is...

Who has been damaged by it? (I now include myself)

The amount of "traffic" is irrelevant....

Be strong and take care.

Hopefully, RfMers will redouble their efforts to monitor their own posts. It's sad when this doesn't happen and some posters push the limits which spoils it for everyone.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 08:39AM by Cheryl.

There is no way you separate religion from politics. This is especially true with Mormonism. However, you can treat each other with respect when having a dialogue about these subjects.
Religion and politics are the most contentious subjects to discuss. It is because sometimes it is like discussing who would win in a fight Mighty Mouse or Superman. It is clear we are living in a remarkable time when it comes to religion and politics. Trolling is a big part of this. The biggest part of this is dealing with Trumpism.

Trumpism is something we would never have dreamed of getting traction in this country. He is opposite of all norms. He truly reflects the trolling part of current communication system. Now some of you like this and think it is refreshing. For many he acts completely opposite of any values we would like our children to have whether we are or are not religious, but descent.

What is difficult to watch during this Trump phenomenon is the total disregard for basic values of honesty, humility(the ability to see when you have done something wrong), and empathy. Again, some of you may like this. You see this as way to get what you want. For some the ends always justify the means. In Mormonism we are taught that the ends justify the means when Nephi kills Labon.

What is going on is that the children are watching us. They know that what is going on with this phenomenon is completely opposite of the values they have been taught. It is the children that will hopefully bring us back. Isn’t that ironic. The internet generation where trolling is a common thing are saying...Mom and Dad that’s is not what you taught me. This is what we are finding in Florida.

I truly think (maybe I am just hoping) that this ends justifies the means attitude of the religious right will come back to bite them. If there was ever a time so called basic “Christian values” are being disregarded by the those who should be the defenders of such values, it is now

How can I tell?

Because so many posts are purely about partisan politics with no connection in any way to mormonism, recovery or to any religious issue.

So if posters can take politics away from religion, why can't they limit politics even slightly on RfM?

Answer: Because they want to impose their will on recovering exmormons? Or because they are consumed by politics and are not willing to put it aside for any reason? Who knows.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2018 10:49AM by Cheryl.

As a teacher I didn't allow that word in my class because it meant a child had a good reason not to try. Saying partisan politics must be related to mormonism means that the mormon component is lost because of non-motivation. If kiddies can learn when they thought they could not, perhaps adults could follow their good example.

No fair claiming that the end justifies the means or that terrible times require terrible actions. If kids can try, I think adults can try.

PolyTicSuck

M@t

Writing this from Sweden. One of the most secular and largest welfare-states in the world.

There has been a political and economic shift here since the early 1990s. Most of the public services are being pushed out on the market. The problem is that the population has not adapted to it and lacks understanding how deep the changes are. There will be no resources left to help people out when a financial crisis turn up in a year or two. Households are deeply in debt and the government will have to go into austerity the days thing does not hold up any longer.

The problem is the welfare-mentality. For decades we have used welfare as a safety valve during radical changes of economic restructuring. It has been one of the best scapegoat-solutions ever seen. The people who did not measure up are pushed out into a safety net but things have become much more stricter for does who do not fit into the dynamic of a ever-changing system. The welfare will soon not be there and people will have to fall back on charity. The problem is that secularity has not been nice to the moral development in this country. It is so used to economic growth and material well-being that it can not imagine frugal times when people are completely left out to their own means. I live in one of the most crime-ridden suburbs of Stockholm and have seen and heard a lot.

My theory is that I will live in a country that will see a total collapse in the coming years because it does not understand its predicament.