Censorship is good

[Mahonri]

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

) that actually made me MORE confused as to his meaning

[patriotsaint]

He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.

Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.

[Jason]

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

I could say things at work that would quickly get me censured....and if riled up enough....fired from my job (permanently censured). I could say things at church that would get me censured (tossed out) and if bad enough (permanently censured). Temple....well I won't go there.

The guy that tried to steady the ark got censured. Dathan and Abiram were censured (swallowed up by the earth).

The plague will rot out the tongues of those that curse God.....and they will die.

I could say things about Obama that would get me quickly censured.....I could say things about a race of people in any number of ghetto's across the United States and quickly get censured.

Constraints all around us.....

[Jason]

He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.

Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.

True....but there are hackers that can accomplish that (without government).

[patriotsaint]

Yes, and private property is in play in each of your scenarios.

At work, you don't own the place, and therefore don't have the right to use it as a venue for personal expression. Same goes for Church.

If you were the owner of a business, the only time you would be censored would be by government (ie sexual harassment etc)

[Mahonri]

Constraints all around us.....

are they bad?

[patriotsaint]

He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.

Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.

True....but there are hackers that can accomplish that (without government).

Use of unauthorized force. Force is still used. If it is used without authorization, then the law should provide you protection/remedy. This scenario is not about censorship, but rather about a crime committed against you and your property.

[Jason]

We censor ourselves (and hopefully our thoughts) on a daily basis....if we don't....then someone else will do it for us. Usually this involves a given set of constraints for the myriad conditions we find ourselves in - church, school, work, internet forum, visit to the ghetto, prison, courtroom, military, etc.

[Jason]

He simply meant that government wasn't the only entity that could use force to censor, but that God has done so as well. At least that's the meaning I got from what he said.

Edit: Yes mummy, the government is the people, but when acting collectively it is government. I don't personally have the power to pull the plug on any of your websites, and neither do I have the right to force you to publish my viewpoints if you do not wish to do so.

True....but there are hackers that can accomplish that (without government).

Use of unauthorized force. Force is still used. If it is used without authorization, then the law should provide you protection/remedy

If the law can be enforced (always comes down to force!).

[Jason]

Yes, and private property is in play in each of your scenarios.

At work, you don't own the place, and therefore don't have the right to use it as a venue for personal expression. Same goes for Church.

If you were the owner of a business, the only time you would be censored would be by government (ie sexual harassment etc)

I've heard of a few business owners that were censored by employees. Couple of them permanently!

[patriotsaint]

We're getting into some fairly broad definitions of censorship. For my posts I am using the definition that follows:

Censorship: suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

"As determined by a government or other controlling body" is key. Just as I explained above, not everything you have mentioned is censorship. A hacker taking down your website is a crime, not valid censorship. Self control is exactly that, not censorship as per the definition stated above. Using a definition that encompasses everything you've discussed confuses the issue and results in us looking at endless scenarios rather than principles.

I believe the principles are as follows:

1. Publishers, bloggers, web site owners, and producers have a right to use their property as they see fit.
2. None of us have the right to force individuals listed in point 1 to use their private property as a vehicle for the expression of our views in the name of free speech.

[Jason]

We're getting into some fairly broad definitions of censorship. For my posts I am using the definition that follows:

Censorship: suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

"As determined by a government or other controlling body" is key. Just as I explained above, not everything you have mentioned is censorship. A hacker taking down your website is a crime, not valid censorship. Self control is exactly that, not censorship as per the definition stated above. Using a definition that encompasses everything you've discussed confuses the issue and results in us looking at endless scenarios rather than principles.

I believe the principles are as follows:

1. Publishers, bloggers, web site owners, and producers have a right to use their property as they see fit.
2. None of us have the right to force individuals listed in point 1 to use their private property as a vehicle for the expression of our views in the name of free speech.

Does it matter whether its "valid" or not....or who the "controlling" body happens to be? Or whether we like it or not?

If I get shot in South Central LA for running my mouth off.....do I care that the party to the deed just broke a law that may or may not be enforced (depending upon capability to enforce by another body)?

If Brian boots me from the forum....does it really matter what his reasons are? Whether its "valid" or not? It comes down to power and force. Game over!

You constrain yourself to meet the confines of whatever particular situation/circumstance you find yourself in with those that have power and force.....or you reap the consequences.

Abinadi was censured....it was unjust....and he chose that. Nothing wrong with that....and hat's off to him for the intestinal fortitude to do it. But at the end of the day he was censured. Right, wrong, or indifferent.

Censorship is a reality everyone has to deal with on a daily basis.....and probably the biggest challenge is censoring one's own thoughts!

[patriotsaint]

Censorship using the definition I posted above is not something we deal with on a daily basis. That is what I am posting about.

[Jason]

Censorship using the definition I posted above is not something we deal with on a daily basis. That is what I am posting about.

LOL....are you trying to censor me?

Good luck with that!

[patriotsaint]

Not trying to censor you in the slightest LOL! Just trying to solidify a definition for clarity's sake. We won't get far in a discussion if we are talking about completely different definitions (as we've proved so far during this interchange).

[Jason]

Not trying to censor you in the slightest LOL! Just trying to solidify a definition for clarity's sake. We won't get far in a discussion if we are talking about completely different definitions (as we've proved so far during this interchange).

Where are you trying to go?

[Jason]

Constraints all around us.....

are they bad?

some....some are good. I'd call it reality determined by the forces around us.

[HeirofNumenor]

Okay I missed something here...President Packer's Oct 2010 General Conference talk was censored? How, and in what way, and what parts?

I was siting in the audience taking notes when he spoke at BYU in Nov 88 on evolution, and March 92 where he touched on abortion and sexual relations in marriage. Funny how BYU swears he never spoke there those years, and you cannot find those talks.

[Mahonri]

Okay I missed something here...President Packer's Oct 2010 General Conference talk was censored? How, and in what way, and what parts?

I was siting in the audience taking notes when he spoke at BYU in Nov 88 on evolution, and March 92 where he touched on abortion and sexual relations in marriage. Funny how BYU swears he never spoke there those years, and you cannot find those talks.

there was a thread here somewhere about it, and several news articles in the papers. basically, it soften things up a little on the sodomites.

[ChelC]

It didn't soften anything... It clarified in a way which placed MORE responsibility on their shoulders, IMO. I believe it was changing the word "tendencies" to "temptations" if my memory serves. Tendencies would suggest an inherent behavior or feeling, whereas temptations does not.

[HeirofNumenor]

okay thank you - kind of like ignoring the claim of sexual "orientation" (helpless victim made that way) and insisting on owning up to the fact that it is sexual "preferences" (out of whack desires).

[lundbaek]

Are we still on topic. I point out that Ezra Taft Benson's recommendation in the April 1972 General Conference of the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" was not printed in the Conference Report, nor in the July Ensign. Also, I consider the muzzling of "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" as censorship. And I've heard "The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson" was similerly censored. These books all address topics that would be aggravating to the LDGs.