Deseret News | LDS have big image problem

Reader comments
LDS have big image problem

546 comments | Read story

disciple | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

As a member for 65 years I believe that if the church would spend more time teaching what our Savior, Jesus of Nazareth taught, Instead of what many of our leaders of this dispensation have taught we would have much more credibility. I have learned that to stay faithful, I need to spend most of my study time with the teachings of the Savior in the New Testament.

Mission Field | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

I don't like it when people refer to anywhere outside of Utah (or parts of Arizona or Idaho) as "the mission field." What? There is no mission work to be done in Utah?

Re:To Celese@6:58 | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Amen.

I am LDS and served a mission to Italy. I found some outstanding Catholics with hearts of gold out there. I think many LDS could learn a lesson from you. You obviously have the light of Christ.

I laugh inside because you (a non-mormon) seem to have the ideals taught by our prophet ingrained in you better than many of our members do. I applaud you and hope you enjoy the kindness of the real "saints".

Comments continue below

Simon Says | 8:34 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Anonymous at 4:09am yesterday. You are right the Book of Rev does say to not add or take away from this book. There are, however, two flaws in your theory. 1st - It says the same thing in the Book of Deuteronomy in the OT. Lets just rip out anything after that. 2nd - Chronologically, the Book Of Rev was not the last book written in the NT. Do your research before you try that really OLD argument against the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church. Check out the last verse in the Book of John. Makes you think.

Shecky Idaho Mormon | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Watching some of the local "brothers and sisters" get holier than thou and quite preachy on local issues...I can understand why people hate us. Some of us are very annoying and fail to consider other peoples points of view. I try to convey this each Sunday while teaching our 'Gospel Doctrine' class. Was it not President Hinckley, who always reminded us to be tolerant of other's opinions? And was it not Pres. Hinckley's and every other church president's teachings that echoed those of Christ...Love and tolerance for our fellow men. Lose the attitude folks, and start bridging the gap between those who believe as we do and those who do not.

TED | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

WHAT DOES EVERYONE WANT MOST IN THIS WORLD? HAPPINESS. MY MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS HAS FORMED ME INTO A VERY HAPPY PERSON. I LOVE LIFE AND RESPECT ALL GOOD PEOPLE. SO, WHY IS EVERYBODY FINDING FAULT?

Soul | 8:49 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Mormons have a positive image of themselves. Unbelievers can dream up whatever image they want to worship.

Herb Gravy | 8:51 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

My, my "Anonymous", are you unaware that Revelations was NOT the last book written? Your argument is baseless!

Chris in Texas | 9:03 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

The best thing Latter-day Saints can do to improve their image is to mass migrate out of Utah and spread throughout the US and be "in the world". Letting your light shine doesn't mean much if you're LDS and your whole block is too. I moved away (because I'm in the Army) in 2001 and have lived in North Carolina, South Carolina, Hawaii, and now Texas. I get so many comments and compliments from people I get to know because I have the opportunity to show them the Gospel in action. I left Utah. You should too.

Really? | 9:06 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

"I found some outstanding Catholics with hearts of gold out there."

Just the fact that this statement is made shows a culture out of touch with the rest of humanity. Imagine that, someone not a Mormon with a good heart.

Snobbery | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Snobbery! who needs it? It's not Godly or righteous. God is not a snob. Snobby people have a image problem with everyone. No one likes them or wants to be around a pompous snob. It is like rotten bread or a dirty bathroom.

Ex-member | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Am a former member of the church and left it because I saw too much hypocrisy in the church.

Bishops that told their wives things they were told in confidence (wives couldn't keep their mouths shut either), distorted interpretations of scripture to suit the need of the moment.
I am now a christian, but without a formal church. I believe God still loves me.

The church needs to practice what it preaches, 11th and 13th Articles of Faith. Stay out of politics, such as anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation. You might have stopped people in California from getting married, but you will never stop them from being homosexual, unless you try to make that illegal as well.

Pass legislation to control real criminal activity, but stop trying to force to your will on others. Wasn't there a battle in heaven to give everyone free agency?

In a stake president interview I was asked whether I was moral in bed with my wife. When I asked what he meant, he said "If Jesus walked in on you would you continue what you were doing?"

Don't know about you, but I wouldn't keep on doing anything if Jesus walked into my bedroom.

NO wonder: | 9:41 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Perhaps the author of this study should do his homework. The gospel was not re- arranged on earth it was restored. There is a difference.

Cyril H. Noble | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

The bible is not a single book but a combnation of many books compiled in 1611. The book of Revelation so happen to be the last book in the bible and called for no additions to that book.

John Pack Lambert | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

On the one hand the Church is not seeking to be popular, that is what Nehor said the church should do.
On the other hand, we want people to know what the Church actually stands for. We want people to know that we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and our Redeemer. Since their are a lot of false notions in circulation, we need to express the truth.
I think the Church's public stance on Proposition 8 has really helped public perception. People have seen we are an organization committed to following the teachings of Jesus.

Scholar | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Time will tell whether the LDS Church will wither because it is "out of touch" or whether it will continue to grow.

I predict that as other Churches see that the LDS are willing to stand up and be counted in regards to issues upon which we agree, they will also stand up to those who argue that the Church is the great evil for not accepting Gay Marriage.

The Gay Marriage crowd is not a majority, and does not represent the views of an enlightened society as they would have us believe.

Their attacks on the LDS will backfire, and the LDS image will actually be strengthened among people of faith as we stand in solidarity on the moral issues we share.

That does not mean we will agree on all of our doctrines, but we will have greater respect for one another because of our consistency on the moral issues.

The LDS willingness to stand up and be counted will not be a detriment, but a strength in the long haul.

Not a popularity contest | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

The Church of Jesus Christ is not supposed to be a popularity contest. The LDS Church's goal is not to be part of the "mainstream". Via Christ's teachings and doctrine obtained by Prophets of God who get direction from Christ, the Church is in the business of doing Christ's work by saving the souls of those who will listen, believe, repent, get baptized and then endure to the end.

Rich | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

This is not surprising, nobody really likes the Mormons, you are arrogant and you get in everyone's face.

RE: Snobbery | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

So let me see if I understand Snobbery's logic: LDS people have an image problem...snobby people have an image problem...LDS people must be snobby. Ironically, this sounds like a perfect example of Mr. Lawrence's conclusion from the survey results: "Our image is lousy largely because of so many falsehoods and distortions out there about who we are." I think it would be much more productive to elevate the dialogue above categorical statements about what LDS are or are not. Then again, this comment board wouldn't be nearly as entertaining.

Well | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

It will only get worse.

So love your neighbor, love your wife, but don't love your neighbors wife and you'll be just fine.

Sneaky Jimmy | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Maybe mormons should consider why they are disliked before condeming others. Mormons are a self-righteous,status conscious, possesion driven group of people. True, they want nothing to do with you if you aren't "one" of them. If you reject the missionary advances then they lose interest. Utah has the highest per-capita use of psychoactive drugs, plastic surgery and multi-level marketing. This type of study is good if it can cause self reflection.

Re: Sneaky Jimmy | 10:20 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Jimmy is quoting unsubstantiated statistics which are most likely not true. Well done, way to tear down those Mormons.

Scott | 10:21 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Much like Moroni's Title of Liberty he waved to rally his people...Other denominations will look to the Latter Day Saints who hold to their values regardless of public opinion and gain strength from it as we all work together to defeat evil.

GW | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Lack of retention, tanking, of the Church, that's interesting, I see as shifting wheat from the tares. I think misery loves company!!!!!!!

realitycheck | 10:27 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

being mormon is truly bizarre. not sure how you even get converts, any more than I understand how scientology gets converts...

I mean, you have a guy that you think was a prophet back in the 1800s. that's like seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. sure - it's there, but is it really Jesus? doubtful at best...

you have secret marriage ceremonies and force brides to make subserviant statements. and you baptise dead people against their will... the list goes on...

are you really suprised that you have an image problem and that 70% of americans think you are a cult?

Sarah Nichole | 10:29 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

While there are self-righteous members of the church, there is also a lot of perceived slight by non-members when none is actually intended. I had an experience recently where I was talking to some people about our beliefs. One girl just found out she had a grandmother that had been a devout Mormon before she died, and the girl didn't know anything about the church. Others were also asking me questions, and we were all discussing not only LDS beliefs, but beliefs in general. One young man in the group came out with some ridiculous statements about what he insisted were founding principles of Mormonism, and when I very politely told him that he'd been misinformed, and we didn't actually believe any of that, he told me I was wrong. He then proceeded to call me every name he could think of and accuse me of all sorts of things I had never once said, and when I pointed that out as well, he insulted my intelligence and told me to stop acting like a child. I at no time raised my voice, was perfectly polite and kind, and only told the truth. It didn't matter, he was offended anyway.

Convert in Texas | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Many years ago I joined the LDS church. At the time, the church stayed under the radar and went about quietly doing good works. No problem. Visited Utah and saw horrible discrimination by church members against those who were members of less than three generations. Definitely not Christlike. Did not make a good impression. The LDS church has become VERY ELITIST. Taking over Salt Lake City. TV ads that do not tell who we are and what we believe, but asking folks to order a Book of Mormon (doesn't help them understand us). Taking a public stand on Prop. 8 in California made us look bad, lacking compassion. Until church leaders understand how people outside Utah think and live, this problem will remain. Suggest they hire a PR firm that is not LDS.

John Pack Lambert | 10:32 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To the 4:09 commentator,
I would not respond to your comments if I had not met people who believed with all their hearts that reading the Book of Mormon would bring curses upon them.
I would urge you to read Jeffrey R. Holland's excellent talk "My Words Never Cease".
I have two responses. One is that it is almost universaly agreed that at least some of the Epistles of John were written after the Book of Revelation, so if the passage meant that no more scripture could be written than John broke that counsel, which means there is probably a different understanding of the passage that is correct.
When John wrote the passage in question, to what book did he refer? Since the New Testament was not yet compiled, it was not some grand book he was adding the finishing touches to, the book he refered to was the Book of Revelation. John means we will be cursed if we add to or take away from the text of the Book of Revelation. Since John wrote more scriptures latter, it is not a ban on additional scripture for all time.

John Pack Lambert | 10:36 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Sooner Cougar,
The srciptures tell us there are many good people who would recieve the message of the gospel if they only knew where to find it.
Having seen people who were so persuaded by the argument any additional scripture would bring on them the curses of God that they would not even open and began to read the Book of Mormon I know this is the truth.
You seem to be saying "All is well in Zion".
We can always improve the way in which we share the gospel. Since I have not read Brother Lawrece's book, I can not say if I feel his reccomendations are valid.
However since people and society changes, we need to adapt our methods so we reach people the most effectively at the present moment.

Anon | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

Junqstuff @ 11:07. The word should have been re-established.

Re: realitycheck | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

"you have secret marriage ceremonies and force brides to make subserviant statements."

What are you talking about? The marriage ceremonies aren't secret, they're available to anybody who has been endowed and lives a clean, moral life - so long as you're invited by the couple in question, of course. And I've never seen a bride forced to make any type of "subserviant" statement, sorry.

Nor do we "baptise dead people against their will". I've never seen anybody dig up anybody else and try to baptize them - and I'm sure that if they had, you'd be able to smell it a mile away. We do what are called proxy baptisms, where somebody living is baptized in place of somebody who has died, but those baptisms aren't binding unless the person in question wants it to be. If they don't, nothing happens to them whatsoever. They can keep on hating Mormons all they like, their names aren't added to any church rolls and they aren't counted as a member of the church.

John Pack Lambert | 10:42 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Internet,
The Church did set up mormon dot org some years ago (I believe it was fall 2001). I was on a mission then and our mission president encoraged us to tell our investigators about this web site and urge them to check it out. He was right that they would (or at least some of them would) look up about the Church on the internet, and we ought to guide them in this endevor.
Elder Ballard has on multiple occasions urged members to set up blogs to speak for the church. I have done so, although I do not claim my blog is in anyway adequate enough, and others have done so as well.
I think although there are members who are insufficiaently kind and loving as was pointed out before, that is not our great failing.
Our biggest issue is we need to be willing and able to give quick answers to people who ask "What does your church believe". I suggest that one good answer is "we believe in the same teachings and organization that Jesus set up when he was on the earth".
The wording probably could be better though.

John Pack Lambert | 10:49 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To the 7:01 commentator,
You show your own ignorance of the past and present status of many thinks religious by lumping Quakers and Puritans.
The Quakers still exist. "Quaint" and "intolerant" do not come to mind. The Quakers are best decribed as "Liberal". The Quakers were among the first religious organizations to formulate same-gender commitment ceremonies.
On the other hand the Puritans are a no longer existent movement, to some extent ancestral to the current Congregationalists, but religiously they have no connection.
What your comment illustrates is that people who think they are cosmopolitan and educated tend to have only superficial ideas about many religions.
Lastly, my exprerience from interactions gained in Michigan and reports on events in Massachusetts is that it is not issues with the past practice of polygamy that cause the major concern of people with the LDS Church, it is the persistent and widespread view that the Church still allows and condones polygamy.

re not a popularity 9:52am | 10:52 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

"the Church is in the business of doing Christ's work by saving the souls of those who will listen, believe, repent, get baptized and then endure to the end."

endure to the end? no wonder you are considered a cult. you all made a rule for every line in the bible and book of mormon in the hopes that you are chosen few... try some levity and fun -

and stop with the whole "worship God" bit. Unless God is extremely vain, you are insulting God with all your fawning and groveling. No need to worship - simply treat others as you would be treated and God will stand by you.

btw - just so you know - God talks to you more than he talks to your religious leaders. All you have to do is listen. That little voice in the back of your head (some call it your conscience) - well, that's God trying to guide you. I suggest you read books less old books and listen more.

John Pack Lambert | 10:55 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Marky,
I have no indication that either Benson or Lawrence are surprised that there is dislike for the Church.
However, I think what we should focus on is that there is ignorance about our message. I do not mind if people hate the church because of what it teaches.
However when people hate the church because we place African-Americans in secondary status, when in fact for over 30 years they have been holding the priesthood and going to the temple, than there is a problem. When people hate the church because it once denied African-Americans membership, when in fact the church has never done such there is a problem. When people hate the church because it allows polygamy when the church fully stopped allowing polygamy by 1906 and was clearly excommunicating people for the practice by 1909 there is a problem.
When people hate the church because we do not believe that Christ atoned for us with his blood, when we in fact have sacrament every week to remember this central act, there is a problem.
So we have to find a way so that the truth will get shared.

CA Mother of 4 | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

I have raised 4 children in CA both boys and girls. They were well liked and very talented in school and sports. They had many friends outside the church. They were respected by most for their standards. It was my daughters non-member friends who stood by here side when a teacher allowed other students to attack her because she was Mormon. But my kids still spent many nights at home because they didn't want to go with friend to partys with drinking and sex going on. (their choice) They still keep contact with these friends but have all said it is nice to be at BYU with friends who have the same standards. Not becaue they want to be isolated just nice to have a bit of a rest before the "real world" comes along.

John Pack Lambert | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To the 8:35 commentator,
There were so many inaccuracies and false implications in the PBS documentary that it took Brian Q. Cannon a whole article to only scratch the surface of them.
The reporting on the Mountain Meadows Massacre was very uneven. The reporting on remamrks by Boyd K. Packer involved presentations of information that were outright lies.
We could do a lot more to spread accurate historical information on the internet and to publish more books on the history of the church, but with the publication of the papers of Joseph Smith starting we may finally be appraoching a day when the true history is set forth.
The Turley-Walker-Leonard project on their book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre began years ago, President Hinckley went to a rememberance of the massacre long before the Mormons came out and I first learned about the Massacre from reading Joseph Fiedling Smith's "Essentials in Church History". So your claim that the massacre was ignored before the PBS "documentary" came out has no basis in fact.

John Pack Lambert | 11:05 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To the 8:37 commentator,
I think you need to study more on the need for and importance of temple marriage.

John Pack Lambert | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Bart,
Mr. Hardy did not legitimately earn a degree from BYU. He purposely set up the situation to give BYU a bad name. He was in violation of the honor code and school rules are very, very clear that you can not graduate when you are not in good standing under the honor code.

Marty Poppins | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

"A SPOON FULL OF SUGAR HELPS THE MEDICINE GO DOWN." Sure the song was catchy but the idea of teaching this mindset to members of the LDS Church just seems...well....SUPERFICIAL. A few examples that LDS pollster suggests sound like the sugarcoated approach that I am talking about: 1. Friendly and "natural" conversations. 2. "Simple" claims. 3. "Non-Threatening" invitations. 4. "Gentle" mentoring. So we have Natural, Simple, Non-Threatening and Gentle. I cringe at the idea that an LDS General Authority would stand and say, "My Brothers and Sisters. I encourage you to come at this whole proselytizing (let's not use the word preaching now) to your neighbor with the following guidines in mind. Try to have what outsiders would consider a "Natural conversation." Make sure to only make "Simple Claims" about Our church. Invite your neighbor in a "non-threatening" way and by all means lets try to be "gentle" this time around.

fellow saint | 11:17 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

There is a HUGE image problem and it all begins within the members of the church....not with the church itself. The church itself is structured perfectly, however many members think that this perfection gives them the right to enforce perfection on others. How often do members of the church comment negatively towards non members of different beliefs. Whenever these non members voice their beliefs we as members immediately try to enforce our opinions on them. Yes this creates an image problem....sorry but it does. Reminds me of an undersized bully. Due to small size (in numbers/members) the church members feel they have to make up for the size, and so many go in swinging defensively (verbally belittling others)in order to not get trampled/or out-voiced by "worldly beliefs". Sometimes even before they hear out the other side's point of view our members attack.

John Pack Lambert | 11:21 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Candiandy,
While I can not say that there is no sin in the world, I think the Californi vote is much more complexed than you present it as.
If people could see that the reading of "King and King" to kindergartners was the result of a no on 8 vote, the vote would have not been so close. Unfortunantly many were lead away by the craftiness in presentation of the no on 8 people to believe this was not an issue.

Mormon and Un-afraid. | 11:21 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

"Christ's original gospel "re-arranged" on the Earth"?!! If this pollster asked the question in that context, then no wonder only 14% recognized it. The LDS Church makes no claim to have re-arranged Christ's Gospel, but Joseph Smith DID restore it. This article is cannon fodder and seems to try and make some kind of point. The WHOLE WORLD can line up at my door and tell me I'm a whacko and it will only strengthen my faith in the gospel.

MY time | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

I attended BYU but am not from Utah, I thought what a different place, because of the people. I came with high expectations because I presume Provo and Utah co, to be a highly LDS area. I was very mistaken by how many LDS people follow mainstream and try to fit in. Why is it bad or Dorky to be a good member of the church in that area? I saw so many conforming to what our church views differntly about. So weird is UTah. Just be happy with who you are.

scholar | 11:28 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

As a Mormon who has lived both in and out of Utah. In Utah, I have found rude and boorish Mormons, and rude and boorish people of other faiths. Outside of Utah I found rude and boorish Mormons and rude and boorish people of other faiths.

In both environments, I have also found wonderful people with whom i have developed lifelong relationships... both Mormons and people of other faiths.

I have tried to be friends with both types of people in both environments. In both places, I found some who were willing to be my friends, and some who weren't.

What is with all of the stereotyping? Are Mormons perfect? Of course not. Are they all friendly and tolerant? Of course not.

Same for people who are not Mormons.

We try our best. Could we be better? Of course.

John Pack Lambert | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To the 1:07 basher,
And that is a low donation for church members living in Mexico or Samoa who barely have enough food to survive?
Secondly, that is a low donation for a family of 19 where the Dad works a second job to afford to educate his children. Especially since that adds up to $54.20 annually for the family. Or what of my friends the Najeras in Ciudad Obregon where the dad works three jobs to make ends meet?
Lastly, but not in anyway leastly, the figure is only the donations through humanitarian campaigns. It does not cover the huge amount of money and energy involved in the welfare program founded through generous fast offerings, including the operation of Deseret Industries which give gainful employment to people who would not otherwise have such, including many people not members of the church.
Your figures are also seriously flawed becaue you ignored the fact that there were less than six million church members in 1985, and so your 13 million figure is not a valid basis to divide.

John Pack Lambert | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

To Eric W,
I think the image of the Church has improved with Prop 8. Those who hate us for our stance on it already hated the Church for its moral stances, but at least now those who agree with us know that we are on their side.

All is well? | 11:42 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

It may be really hard to fix some issues. We believe in golden plates, angelic visitations, the word of wisdom and other things that tend to overshadow beliefs about eternal families etc. I would be ecstatic it if people had a positive view of the church.

Non-Mormon Perspective | 11:45 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

I admire the kindness and humanitarian efforts of the LDS Church, and I count many Mormons as close friends. It drives me nuts, though, when the LDS Church and its members try to impose their own beliefs on others who have good reasons for disagreeing with them. For example, I don't much care if the Church proscribes gay marriage for its own members, but it burns me up that they insist that nonmembers must play by their rules, too. So arrogant and presumptuous.

Soul | 11:46 a.m. Nov. 24, 2008

I am Mormon and my non-Mormon neighbors like me and my family very much....or, maybe they just tolerated me. I tolerate them too.

In fact that's all I can do. Maybe that is good enough for now. At least I am honest and decent with others not of my religion...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.