I just posted a message with a lot of Utah and Mormon church history in it to support my point, along with some right-leaning political opinion. It lasted less than one minute before it was deleted.

Are political posts prohibited here again, or is it only political posts that the moderators disagree with, that are prohibited? Theoretically, anything that one disagrees with strongly enough could be deemed unacceptable. Even calling the mormon church a cult could be considered hate speech if you're a TBM. The most controversial part of my post was to suggest the possible arrest of Jerry Brown for signing in to law, illegal laws in California. Can anyone here give me an example of an acceptable political opinion of a conservative person, that would pass moderation here? This is an honest question.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1840490

Updated Board Guidelines

We have had a longstanding policy not to allow politics on RfM. Mormonism intersects with politics, but discussion of political issues is often divisive, not conducive to the purpose of this board and all the guidelines discussed above.
Eric has recently decided to allow limited discussion of politics. He states: “We will allow some leeway in political posts insofar as they pertain to religion. If this gets out of hand, we will stop again. This is tough and we can never please everyone. Please no bashing for political views - we do not allow preaching, religious or political. These are strange times. As a group we seem to help one another with topics that are bit off from Mormonism. Let's give it a try.”

He added: “Let's keep it to religion oriented politics. Otherwise this is not going to work. We can go to thousands of sites for political debate. This will get us off track.”

Partisan politics are strongly discouraged and subject to deletion (being on one side and against another) and discussing world leaders, elections and general political issues will likely be deleted. For the US, discussion of the recent election or the new administration, especially major political figures by name, will be deleted.

If your post pertains to ideas and questions and comments in general, with wide-ranging application, AND you directly relate them to Mormonism or religion it will likely fit within the new (experimental) guidelines about allowing limited discussion of politics, as it relates to Mormonism.

How to distinguish between an acceptable post and one that will be deleted:

Romney's run raised the Mormon "White Horse Prophecy" which this far in the past would likely be OK to discuss as long as it does not stray into partisan political remarks. Relating it to JS would be considered to be on topic (Mormon history, so directly related to discussion of Mormonism).

Discussion of a current event (i.e. the recent attack in Quebec City, Canada) is likely OK but only in the context of expressing best wishes, not commenting on perpetrators or reasons or blame extrapolated to entire groups of people.

Posters have recently suggested or brought up topics such as Charlie Hebdo, IS and other major political events and discussions. These are very likely to be deleted asap. Too divisive and off topic for RfM. Comparisons of belief systems such as Christianity and Islam are cautiously allowed but discussion of Mid East political policy and acts of extremism are not. Too divisive and off topic for RfM. Too much contention between posters and too much extra work for moderators.

The best way to observe board rules (thereby being courteous to Eric, fellow posters and mods) and not get deleted is to avoid making partisan political statements AND to relate your comments to Mormonism/religion.

If posters can't help but bring divisive politics into their remarks Eric will likely have no choice but to scale back this experiment with a loosening of the No Politics rule or stop it immediately. Otherwise, it's just too much work for the mods and creates a negative atmosphere on the board.

Thanks for your efforts to observe these guidelines. We will update as needed.


Did your post about Jerry Brown fall within these guidelines?
I didn't see it, so I cannot form an opinion.

Try quoting David Brooks, the NY Times token conservative. That should fly.

Amyjo just posted a thread about hate sleech that I could identify with, although my opinion seems to be a possible contrast to hers. Her heart is in the right place, and I agree emphatically with her about not wanting anyone to be punished for their race or beliefs, or memberships in peaceful organizations.

It is absolutely amazing, the irony that can exist in political realms when people deem their opinions good, and the opinions of others, evil and therefore a person assumes their manifest right to treat the other person(s) badly. One of the scariest times in my life was facing a crowd of people holding "No Hate" signs and shaking their fists like they wanted to kill me, as I exited a Trump rally.

Um, suggesting that the guv will be arrested for signing illegal laws isn't conservative, it's tin-foil hattery.

If a law is illegal, you challenge it in court and have it ruled invalid. If the legislature passed it, and the guv signed it, and the courts upheld it, it is by definition legal. At that point your recourse is to vote in a new legislature and governor. You can't arrest the governor for signing a law. That's his or her job.

The so-called 'errors' if they exist, came out of a timeline retrieved for those events from wikipedia. Any Governor can sign anything in to law and yes, until the courts strike it down, it will be the law. In retrospect after it is striken down, it will have been an illegal law. For eight years, too many people emphatically promoted the idea that immigration laws are a federal matter and that the states have no authority to write their own immigration related laws. Now that the tide has reversed, they write their own state immigration laws with impunity. The hypocracy breeds resentments.

Concerning the timeline and points made about legalities, the whole point was that even Governor Brigham Young's theocracy was willing to abandon its most important theological concept/requirement (to get in to the celestial kingdom) even after the posse conitatas was passed. Their fear of a Federal government army overpowering them was all it took for them to relent. Point being, a liberal mindset on immigration held by some Californians now is much more likely to collapse sooner upon serious threats from Federal pressure, than did Brigham Young's abandonment of polygamy.

The point about Eisenhower's actions in Little Rock weren't about legalities of the situationn, it's about that legal or not (not debated there) he used Federal Troops to enforce Federal laws on American soil, something that most people assume that posse comitatas prevents.

Lastly, and I probably wasn't clear on this, California as a sanctuary state is on the wrong side of history now when it comes to immigration. And concerning our federal legislators and their actions, It's not worth shutting the federal government down over DACA, when nothing else in the bill is cause for the senate democrats to debate right now. It's like someone who has their house for sale, so you go in and put a gun to the family and say "so let's negotiate the price now". Whether now or later, the Federal government will not allow cities and states to legislate immigration laws. Considering what extreme measures the feds have taken in the past, nothing is off the table when it comes to federal enforcement.

Your first paragraph contradicts your second and fourth paragraphs. In the first, you assert that there was federal overreach with regard to immigration, which bred understandable resentment and led to states doing their own thing. Then in your second and fourth paragraphs you say that the federal government should now dictate the outcome on immigration. The only way I can see to harmonize your positions is to note that you have an underlying bias in favor of Trump's policies on immigration. Otherwise there is no way your different viewpoints can logically coalesce.

As for Brigham Young and the abandonment of polygamy, two points. First, Young was long dead by the time the LDS church in Utah abjured (nominally if not actually) the practice. Also, there was no question of the Feds invading Utah to stop polygamy at that point. The threat was in 1857-1858, not 1890. The issue in 1890 was statehood. The territory of Utah (the Mormon Church) wanted statehood and hence forswore polygamy. Your comment about the posse comitatas law is therefore irrelevant: there hadn't been any threat of a federal invasion of Utah for over 30 years.

On Little Rock, I think you'll find that very few people believe the posse comitatas law precluded what Eisenhower did. The reason is two-fold. First, federal power to enforce civil rights legislation is enshrined in the constitution and hence supercedes all laws. Second, the enforcement acts provide for specific enforcement of civil rights legislation. It is only if one holds up the posse comitatas law with no regard to the constitution and other legislation that it appears to preclude Eisenhower's action--which is why the supreme court allowed it.

Finally, whether DACA is an appropriate reason to hold up the budget legislation is a personal value judgement. It is not a constitutional argument. And yes, in their subordinate realm of immigration law there will be considerable variation from state to state--as there always has been.

. . . which, by the way, expressly violates board rules. See Admin's policy position on that matter here (which just so happens to prominently appear atop RfM's Message List page for all to see):

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1840490


Next question?



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2018 09:18AM by steve benson.