Censorship is good

[Mahonri]

There has been a lot of complaints about censorship here lately, some of it tongue in cheek I know, but is censorship really a bad thing in principle?

Sure, in government, censorship of political disagreements is horrible and always helps the power hungry. However, the Church has censored talks, it has censored individuals, and it censors what is used in teaching in classes ans well as home teaching.

to rail against censorship as a whole, aren't we railing against the Church?

[ChelC]

Well... my cousin and I grew up watching Airplane ... the TV version. When we watched the uncensored one we were in for a shock. Yes, censorship can be very appropriate at times. It can also give people a false sense of reality.

So my answer is... it depends.

[edzachary]

There has been a lot of complaints about censorship here lately, some of it tongue in cheek I know, but is censorship really a bad thing in principle?

Sure, in government, censorship of political disagreements is horrible and always helps the power hungry. However, the Church has censored talks, it has censored individuals, and it censors what is used in teaching in classes ans well as home teaching.

to rail against censorship as a whole, aren't we railing against the Church?

The Church is not a democracy.

[John Locke]

There has been a lot of complaints about censorship here lately, some of it tongue in cheek I know, but is censorship really a bad thing in principle?

Sure, in government, censorship of political disagreements is horrible and always helps the power hungry. However, the Church has censored talks, it has censored individuals, and it censors what is used in teaching in classes ans well as home teaching.

to rail against censorship as a whole, aren't we railing against the Church?

The Church is not a democracy.

over the past few days we've been told this site isn't either so I guess Censorship here is fine in theory, however I'll go ahead and still not be ok with it....

Actually let me rephrase that i'm ok with censorship of offensive speech, but not of offensive ideas, or conflicting ideas.

[edzachary]

Actually let me rephrase that i'm ok with censorship of offensive speech, but not of offensive ideas, or conflicting ideas.

Ok, so if someone came along to support Satanism in the gospel discussion areas of this site you'd allow that?

[edzachary]

So just curious.... if a General Authority gives a talk on something and is speaking as a representative of the Lord over the pulpit, and then his talk is later censored and even the meaning of his message is changed - what are we to gather from that? Is he a "fallen" apostle? Was he not really speaking as a representative of the Lord? Was he just having a "senior moment"? If everything in the church below Pres. Monson can be censored, would that make the church a dictatorship? Just curious what your take on this one is ed. You too Mahonri!

I think this is the reason why the Lord operates by the Spirit.

Sidney Rigdon was a Church authority who argued over the pulpit for several hours following the murder of The Prophet that he was to be "guardian" for the Church in his stead. Some bought into that but many did not.

I suppose in your example you're likely referring to the Boyd K. Packer talk in conference that was edited -- or "censored" -- after the fact.

I guess you could argue about that being a good or a bad thing all you want but in my view the only way to know the truth is through the Spirit.

[Original_Intent]

I think that in a forum setting, it is far superior to expose bad ideas than to silence them. I would appreciate when I have wrong understanding of pricniples that I ahve it pointed out to me rather than that I be banned.

Don't get me wrong - I support 100% Brian and the mods perogative to ban whomever they want for whatever reason they want. I think that if a person is being generally disruptive by spamming or antagonizing other forum members - after warnings, that even this is worthy of at least temporary banning/censorship.

[fps.sledge]

I feel like the term "censorship" is absolutely conditional when it comes to the church and censorship. AM I the only one to thinks Packers last conference talk was changed to mean something more significant and a stronger offense against God? If it was changed to a stronger tone, it's not censorship.

It's possible scriptures could be re-written, and still serve the same cause and purpose. Joseph Smith didn't translate word-for-word from the plates.

As far as the forum goes, Brain can do whatever he wants with it. If he didn't like me, I don't blame him if he chose to ban me. This is a private forum and he can make it whatever he wants. If a moderator chooses to ban or censor someone, he can do so as long as the site owner doesn't disagree. If the owner did disagree, naturally, the moderator would cease to perform.

[edzachary]

It's possible scriptures could be re-written, and still serve the same cause and purpose. Joseph Smith didn't translate word-for-word from the plates.

They have been "clarified" at times. Perhaps it could be as you describe.

[Rincon]

There has been a lot of complaints about censorship here lately, some of it tongue in cheek I know, but is censorship really a bad thing in principle?

Sure, in government, censorship of political disagreements is horrible and always helps the power hungry. However, the Church has censored talks, it has censored individuals, and it censors what is used in teaching in classes ans well as home teaching.

to rail against censorship as a whole, aren't we railing against the Church?

The Church is not a democracy.

So just curious.... if a General Authority gives a talk on something and is speaking as a representative of the Lord over the pulpit, and then his talk is later censored and even the meaning of his message is changed - what are we to gather from that? Is he a "fallen" apostle? Was he not really speaking as a representative of the Lord? Was he just having a "senior moment"? If everything in the church below Pres. Monson can be censored, would that make the church a dictatorship? Just curious what your take on this one is ed. You too Mahonri!

In scripture we have instances when the Lord stopped a number of the Prophets when they were about to give us the rest of the story. So it is appropriate for the President of the Church to ask one of the conference speakers to delete a few items from his conference talk. This doesn't mean what was said is wrong, it means it was not the right time to say it. I have no problem with this.

[Jason]

It gives everyone something to talk about......and gets far more attention to that particular talk.....than it otherwise would have ever received!

[John Locke]

Actually let me rephrase that i'm ok with censorship of offensive speech, but not of offensive ideas, or conflicting ideas.

Ok, so if someone came along to support Satanism in the gospel discussion areas of this site you'd allow that?

Why not? We have discussed Wicca on this site before without it being a problem. I don't think we do anyone a favor by censoring opinions. Some of you would argue that all those who support/supported the republican party are supporting satanism so......

[edzachary]

Actually let me rephrase that i'm ok with censorship of offensive speech, but not of offensive ideas, or conflicting ideas.

Ok, so if someone came along to support Satanism in the gospel discussion areas of this site you'd allow that?

Why not? We have discussed Wicca on this site before without it being a problem. I don't think we do anyone a favor by censoring opinions. Some of you would argue that all those who support/supported the republican party are supporting satanism so......

LOL. I guess I was looking at it differently. For example, I run a popular forum dedicated to Christmas. Occasionally, especially off season, someone will go off on a tangent and talk about something really contrary to the purpose of the site. Some times the reason why is obvious -- they are linking to another site they want traffic to or they are selling something. Those posts I immediately delete. It is all spelled out in the forum rules, which nobody reads, but ultimately I feel it my duty as the site owner to uphold the integrity of site by enforcing what I guess you could call or label as censorship.

I see it more as a business decision, however.

I find it Ironic that we're talking about censorship on a forum titled "freedom forum". The honest truth is we're never going to escape "censorship" for a variety of reasons (even boring reasons).

[Mahonri]

[quote="edzachary"The honest truth is we're never going to escape "censorship" for a variety of reasons (even boring reasons).[/quote]


should we try to "escape" censorship? Is there something inherently wrong with the principle of censorship?

Not directed at anyone in particular

[sbsion]

to rail against censorship as a whole, aren't we railing against the Church?

no.........the church censors lots of things..............it's the gospel that has a "problem" with limiting agency

[edzachary]

it's the gospel that has a "problem" with limiting agency

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying. There's a big leap between censorship and agency.

[Mahonri]

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.

don't worry, no one understands what he is saying. All his "...." and incomplete sentences/thoughts, make it impossible to make heads or tails of anything he says.

[patriotsaint]

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that nobody here is being censored in any area of their life. The only true censoring that happens is through the force of government. Let me explain what I mean......

If you aren't able to express your views on the LDSFF, can you start your own blog/website/forum etc and speak your mind freely? If a general authority is so called "censored" in conference, are they still free to write a book or an article or give an interview to express exactly what they wish to express? If a tv program is censored on a certain network, are they free to publish their program independently, offer it via PPV or over the internet?

The truth is that censorship and private property issues are often co-mingled and confused. The owner of a website, magazine, newspaper or tv network has the right to use their property as they see fit. We don't have the right to force them to use their property as a platform for the expression of our views in the name of "free speech". To do so would violate their property rights.

This is why the only true censor is one who can enforce their censorship with the threat of violence. The only entity that fits the bill is government. The fact is that any of us are absolutely free to speak our mind through any type of media as long as the government doesn't shut us down. So start a website, write a book or an article, blog it up, but don't ever complain you are being censored.

No blogger, website owner, publisher, or producer is obligated to allow us free reign over their personal property. Period.

[Jason]

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that nobody here is being censored in any area of their life. The only true censoring that happens is through the force of government. Let me explain what I mean......

If you aren't able to express your views on the LDSFF, can you start your own blog/website/forum etc and speak your mind freely? If a general authority is so called "censored" in conference, are they still free to write a book or an article or give an interview to express exactly what they wish to express? If a tv program is censored on a certain network, are they free to publish their program independently, offer it via PPV or over the internet?

The truth is that censorship and private property issues are often co-mingled and confused. The owner of a website, magazine, newspaper or tv network has the right to use their property as they see fit. We don't have the right to force them to use their property as a platform for the expression of our views in the name of "free speech". To do so would violate their property rights.

This is why the only true censor is one who can enforce their censorship with the threat of violence. The only entity that fits the bill is government. The truth is that any of us are absolutely free to speak our mind through any type of media as long as the government doesn't shut us down. So start a website, write a book or an article, blog it up, but don't ever complain you are being censored.

No blogger, website owner, publisher, or producer is obligated to allow us free reign over their personal property. Period.

God promised us through His prophet that He would censure His prophet should the need arise....plenty of examples through the scriptures of individuals censured at one time or another......Korihor immediately comes to mind.

Update - Add God to government!

....technically the government is the people. I can censure my neighbor through force if I need to.....as can anyone else. For example I can speak my mind in the South Gate (suburb in LA).....but odds are I'd get censured pretty rapidly depending on what I said and the attitude of those present.

[patriotsaint]

Are you an anti-christ or false prophet mummy? If not then you are not being censored by God. Your example doesn't apply to 99.9% of the population.

Anyway, the point of my post was that the right of private property exists. The right to force others to use their property for our benefit doesn't exist.

[Mark]

Not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.

don't worry, no one understands what he is saying. All his "...." and incomplete sentences/thoughts, make it impossible to make heads or tails of anything he says.

=)) Thanks for the laugh Bro.

[Mahonri]

sorry Mummy, not sure what your response has to do with the post you replied to

[Jason]

Are you an anti-christ or false prophet mummy? If not then you are not being censored by God. Your example doesn't apply to 99.9% of the population.

Anyway, the point of my post was that the right of private property exists. The right to force others to use their property for our benefit doesn't exist.

Who doesn't pay taxes?

[Jason]

sorry Mummy, not sure what your response has to do with the post you replied to

....allow me a sec to edit it and highlight the point...

[patriotsaint]

Ok, I get your meaning now. Adding God to government is fine and doesn't really change my original post.