Involvement is a difficult thing to measure. To a degree, for instance, any of us who have voted are involved in the political process. And that is a very important step. But it is insufficient by itself. The church has told us to be involved in the political process, to campaign for candidates we believe in, and perhaps even become candidates ourselves.
Of course, that is easier said than done. I've only slowly been ramping up how much I do. I do talk a lot more than I actually do stuff. I think most of us are the same.

"do we really come across as simply being people who sit around and complain, whine, etc. instead of actually doing things that are within our individual power?"

Actually, no.  I think the moderator was a tad exasperated with Valhalla for starting yet another political thread after being asked not to.  I think she posted that and mentioned both political sites to give us a plug.

We should thank her for the advertisement.

I think we should just drop it.  They don't want to hear it.  Let's leave it alone and let them all sit about in their knitting club and agree with eachother regarding unimportant topics.

I was astounded a couple weeks ago when Jana posted something that was blatantly false doctrine, and someone else thanked her for providing comfort.  It bugs me when people take comfort from false doctrine, but that is all they want there:  Warm fuzzies any way they can get them.

And we need to let them give them to eachother.

Let's just leave them in peace.

All is well in Zion and all that.

Psst, those are the Mormons, they think they're the only ones here.

Thanks for the honest feedback guys.  I realized last evening as I was at the temple with the youth for baptisms that maybe my initial post sounded like a rant or complaint or something less than complimentary to those folks over at Nauvoo.

I really don't hold a grudge against any of them (if anyone was wondering or thinking it).  I was just hoping that for the benefit of all those who participate there, things were becoming better, but it doesn't look like it.  It still appears what can be discussed there depends on who one is and, well to use perhaps a bit more precise language than Hoss did, what level of sycophant one is.  I am indeed sorry if my saying that makes anyone wince.

For the record, I will probably throw my hat in the ring with Romney, and may even for the first time in recorded history actually join ranks and put some money towards it once the financial situation on the home front settles down.  I was (remember the saying Hoss?  ) "shocked and appalled" to hear some analyst on Hannity and Colmes saying last night that the only Republican candidate thus far who can say they have actually ever done anything and has a track record to prove it was Guliani... I'm thinking like "What? Excuse me?  McCain has been a senator for x years and hasn't done a thing?  Romney has been a governor for x years and hasn't done a thing, plus right wrong or indifferent was the poster boy for saving face at the Olympics?  What exactly is Guliani's track record outside of NYC?  How much of an impact does what he did in NYC have on the rest of us?"