- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Moved to the parking lot. Is this post not against the policy on politics just as much as Watcher’s post? At least until it’s cleaned up a little.
Quote:people who actually have standards
Quote:backbone to enforce
Quote:radical political Left
Quote:people show up to work dressed like homeless people
Quote:debaucherous lifestyle and lack of behavior standards that is promoted by secularism and atheism
Quote:wishing you could indulge in all that freedom
All the exact same points in the post could be made without the comments quoted above.
Sent this PM: Quote:Just to let you know…
This post isn’t gone, it’s being reviewed for moderation.
https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?t=10201 Personally I think it fits with the rules of political discussion being related to staying LDS but there are a few politically charged statements in the post that wouldn’t take away from the overall message if they were absent from the post.
I’m working with him on it. I think you make a good point as he does repeatedly reference being conservative and wanting to be around conservatives and his perception that the church is a bastion for conservatives. I do think he is referencing social conservatism but in today’s America there is little difference (and maybe there never was). I saw it as a sincere post about how to stay LDS, but I do agree that the things you excerpted are problematic in that they are insulting and judgmental. I support working with him to address that issue. I just will point out that we have to be careful, since conservative members could say, legitimately, that the same general feelings get expressed here about orthodox members and their views without being flagged for moderation. I think the specific wording justifies a discussion, but I need to mention the possible, reasonable reaction.
I re-added the post. I only contested the bits about actually having standards, the debaucherous lifestyles, and radical political left. Asking him to consider how he’d feel if the sides being discussed were reversed. If he edits the post he edits it; if not, not.
As a side, if that post can fly I don’t understand why Watcher’s post gets moderated. He was ambiguous about which side he felt was worse (though it could easily be inferred), he didn’t target one side, and he didn’t dehumanize one side.
I’ll just leave InquiringMind’s post as-is and let people judge for themselves.
Watcher’s post was moderated because it was only political (fracking) and had nothing to do with faith or the church, if that is the post you are referencing. If you mean another one, let us know. It is a discussion we need to have.
Agreed on the fracking one. I was referencing this one: I do see some differences in Watcher’s post and IM’s. Watcher was specifically talking politics and said so right up front. While his point of church leadership preaching political neutrality that doesn’t necessarily make it to the local ward (IOW we should all be able to get along) is well taken, he also goes astray with statements like this: Quote:It is my opinion that one is much more dangerous to our freedoms and liberties than the other.
Quote:I am currently quite disappointed by many prominent LDS involved in politics.
My thought is that those statements open the door to the kind of political talk we don’t want here. Which party do you think Watcher believes in more dangerous? Which prominent member is he disappointed in? (Based on other things he has said, I’m pretty sure he’s referring to Dems being dangerous and being disappointed in Romney.)
I think IM is more educated, more eloquent, and an all around better writer than Watcher. He couched his political views in a post that was not overtly political, although it’s clear after reading and digesting his statements that one of the things he’d like to get from the church is closer relationships with those who think similarly political but his stumbling block is that those same people may not see eye-to-eye religiously (and I do think he makes some incorrect sweeping generalizations in the latter).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.