Reader comments
Interfaith service stresses the equal worth of all people

I have thought about this word "EQUAL & EQUALITY". And I've come to the conclusions that we're not all equal, but rather different, and it's that difference that we need to be concerned with and to respect. EQUAL means the same, or the same rights and privileges, I'm not the same or equal to a gay, black, Chinese, poor, rich, etc. persons - I'm just different to them, and being different to them does not mean I'm entitled to dishonor, disrespect, or treat them with indifference than myself. God sees all people differently, but treats them equally based on the conditions of their hearts.

Well said. If we understand the nature of God then we can better understand how we are to treat people.I believe this is the desire of all latter day saints.Read our scriptures and apply them in our daily lives.If we do that we wont fail.

I find it pretty pathetic for Elder M. Russell Ballard of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve to get up and speak about the equal worth of all people after the recent performance put on by his church over Proposition 8. "Equal" must be a relative term for him. Or perhaps he doesn't understand the meaning of the word.

I think it is so awesome that these people, all from different faiths, can come together in one meeting and show love toward each other. That's what it's all about.

It would be great if the LDS church could learn from this lesson and change its disrespect towards others and their believes. The LDS church carries the believe that they alone have the one and only right answer, but until they can prove that they need to join in with others in teaching and choosing good just for goodness sake.

In response to "It all depends on the definition" Marriage has never been construed as a right. Neither is Health-care. Read the Bill of Rights. Read the Declaration of Independence. Marriage was taken away from the LDS Church in the 1890's hundreds of Marraiges were nullified. If you want to speak about "equality", or rights, first educate yourself, and then speak. You might look less uneducated that way.

I think it's pretty pathetic for you to judge anyone.

Says the article "...all people are of equal worth, despite the spectrum of their differences."

The challenge is to translate a sincere belief of "equal worth" into equitable (let alone equal) treatment, given the seemingly juxtaposed nature of some human differences.

Perhaps they should have more of these meetings, but without preaching to their own choirs. Why not a meeting like this with atheists and the gay community?

Even today as benificial topics are conveyed, any LDS involvement is mocked. The principles discussed, seem to be sound. I'm not sure if comparing equality and differaces is really the point. An apple is and apple and will always be an apple. And an orange will always be an orange. Are they equal or are they different? Some fruits are poisionous and should be avoided. Does a person have the right to eat it with out being worned of its hazards? A sickness can be spread to the unknowing and they have to suffer the affects of the poison. So keep up the good work! We all need a litte help now and then.

I rescind my comments regarding the education of "It all depends on the definition." They were distasteful and ungentlemanly; however, I do stand by the principle of the comment. I still strongly feel, that before we judge others we must learn about the past, understand where they have been, and what has formed them, then and only then do we have a right to make an informed judgement, yes judgement.

In every forum the Anti's must come forth. This was a nice article. Take it for what it is.

Atheists and Gay's? It was an interfaith meeting, why would these two groups be relevant since they are not organized, (informally or formally) as faith groups? They would be relevant as members of the participating faith groups (well, maybe not the atheists), but I think the get together was very well defined as to it's scope.

Apparently "Equal" only applies to straight religious people then? Is that your definition? I thought the article said Elder Ballard spoke about about the equal worth of "all people."

I stand by my original statement.

I don't remember making any statement about the "right" of marriage. However, since you brought it up, it seems a bit incongruous that straights are able to marry civilly, yet gays are not. Is that "equal" under your definition (regardless of whether it is a "right")?

To: Gee Bee and Cato

So Elder Ballard meant only faith groups are equal?

I thought it was a wonderful program. Every religion that was represented was emphasizing love for your fellow man. There was not one religion that did not mention that. I am sorry for those of you who still have a problem with prop. 8. Only 2% of California is LDS, even the LDS Church financial contribution was less than that of the Catholic Church. The people that pushed Prop 8 through were African American who listened to the Baptist preachers. So far all I have heard is good from other religions who also voted for Prop. 8. It has put the LDS in a much better light because they now know our moral values and what they stand for. I left this service with much more love and unity for my fellow man.

I rescind my remarks regarding the education of Definition. They were uncouth, uncalled for, and ungentlemanly; I do however stand by the principle behind the remark. I strongly feel that one must study history, learn of the past and present and the ideas and beliefs that make up a person or group of people before we have the right to judge them.
Regarding Prop. 8. The matter at hand is the definition of a word; Marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not against Homosexual Couples having equal rights as a Married Couple (all of which are already extended by current California Law, save Marriage.)Instead it is in favor of protecting something deemed by the Vox Populi of California to be in the realm of religion. Life, Liberty, Property, the Pursuit of Happiness, Speech, Petition, Assembly, Redress of grievances, Press, Bearing Arms, Protection against the unlawful quartering of Troops, Protection against Unlawful Searches and Seizures, due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain, Trial by Jury, protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, All of these are RIGHTS, as defined by the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not among them. It has been taken away by the Government before.

You seem overly obsessed with the Bill of Rights. Does that mean ONLY those rights should be granted? What about the right to privacy? That is not in the Constitution either. Yet, I'm certain you would object to posting your medical records online for all to see, or your marital activities.

What about the right to an education? Not mentioned in the Constitution either. Equality before the law is however.

May I suggest you quit obsessing on the definition of "rights" and focus more on "equality." Then YOU will look a bit less educated yourself.

Equal worth of all people... except gays!

Reminds me of Animal Farm: All are equal, but some are MORE equal than others!

What a bunch of rotten stuff you Mormons are trying to cram on us!

This interfaith conference was not based on Prop. 8. It was love for mankind. Which was expressed. Get over Prop. 8. The people voted and it passed. It is a done deal.