Deseret News | Demos find LDS silent on issues

Reader comments
Demos find LDS silent on issues

181 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
Next >

PI Attorney | 12:50 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Since there is typically only a limited amount of insurance when a person is killed in an accident, McCoy's bill would reduce the amount of funds the other heirs (parents, children) would be entitled to collect by adding another person.

This could cause major legal battles challenging such a law as unconstitutional, delaying recovery for the departed's family.

lvman | 2:20 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Are these people idiots? We need a special law so that a gay person can inherit property? And all this time I thought you could leave whatever you wanted to whomever you wanted in your will or trust. I didn't know bequests to gay people were invalid. That's a shocker to me. And while they are at it, make sure that I, my family and all my friends can be added to Seeling's insurance policy also since we all want insurance too. Heck, why stop there, just include the entire State of Utah onto Seelig's policy. But I guess that would be the same thing as a single payer system which we all know would be the end of civilization as we know it because the insurance companies have told us so.

donnieboy48 | 3:09 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I have posted on this article 4 times and nothing showes up..maybe I am banned from giving an honest opinion...

Comments continue below

Where are the details? | 4:26 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I would like to know what specifically was discussed about immigration, considering the church typically uses its influence to derail any bills which would crack down on illegal aliens.

Shrug | 4:47 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

You can make many laws but you can't change their attitude. It'll take an entire generation to change, just like racism issues.

DennyG | 5:25 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The Church should stay silent on issues.

Tim | 5:39 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Listen to the Gov or stay in the stone ages and wonder why outsiders won't vote for Mormons!

Utah Resident | 6:08 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Why is our Legislature 80 percent LDS, when actual members (active or in name only) make up barely 60 percent?

joe shmo | 6:15 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

they aren't watched by lds leaders, they are monitored by lds leaders who tell their brethern how to vote...lets face it. the church runs the state..you can't fool me...

B. Young | 6:38 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

If you don't like it, just move to Calibfornia.

Anything goes there and the taxes to pay for that liberal mess show it.

re: joe shmo | 6:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

can you hear my tiny violin playing for you! Whine, Whine, Whine!!!!

Wondering | 6:46 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

just wondering whatever happened to seperation of church and state. I know it is a strange concept around here but it sure would be nice to see it happen. I don't want or need anyone's church telling me what I can and cannot do, if I did I would go to church for myself

Danny C. | 6:54 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The Church should not stay silent on issues, but government leaders and representatives should remember it wasn't the Church that voted them in.

Kevin | 6:53 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Why are homosexuals trying to get the LDS church to make a statement of support of their legislation? We should want to them, as an organization, to neither support nor oppose. Church organizations don't pay taxes, and should stay out of politics until they do. They are not prohibited by law from doing so, but they should be prohibited unless they pay the user fee we all pay.

papagoose | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The church does not run the state. People simply vote their conscience. Normally your upbringing and personal convictions dictate how you are going to react to any given issue or situation. My concern is... many of the people who moved to Utah for the "Quality of Life" arrive, then want to change our laws to match the ones they had where they are from... "Think McFly!" if we do that then we are going to be in the same boat their former places of residence are in, with higher crime, etc.

Property rights | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I don't understand how the state can tell us to whom we must rent our OWN PROPERTY! If I prefer not to rent my property to gays, blacks, latinos, college students, the elderly, families with young children, Mormons, or any other group it's MY business. We don't need government forcing us to rent to certain groups. That goes for my who I hire as well.

George | 7:02 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Dear joe shmo,

Why do you chose to live here?
Why do you chose to read this paper?

To: DennyG | 7:04 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

What do you have to base your comment on? "The Church should stay silent on issues."

Certainly it can't be the First Amendment?

It IS Freedom OF Religion. NOT Freedom FROM Relegion.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of speech is not limited to anyone. Even you DennyG.

Abraham Tschetter | 7:05 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

When it comes to input into political affairs, the church should always be silent.

30 second memory | 7:09 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

When the LDS church was fighting gay marriage in California, there was a lip service to the idea that the LDS church does not hate gay people nor want to discriminate against them. I agree that a non-tax paying organization should not have any political access, but since the LDS church does things like prevent two gay people from marriage (but not living together...what message does that send?) and historically has done things like fight the Equal Rights Ammemdment for women, maybe the LDS church can undo some of the damage it has done by supporting these bills. However, I seriously doubt it will happen. My wife and I did not pay tithing this year because I hate to think a portion of my money is going to this increasingly homophobic organization. I now know what church members felt like in the mid '70s when the LDS church was not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood. Is the LDS church going to be on the wrong side of every important human rights movement, or make a different choice?

Dave S. | 7:11 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

You guys of similar thought should show your contempt for the church by leaving the state as fast as you can, I wouldn't take it if I were you!! Try Maine?!

SlowS | 7:14 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The fact that lawmakers meet with LDS leaders to get a sense of their current standing by ITSELF shows that the LDS Church is wielding influence.

observer | 7:16 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

This article is interesting and certainly raises awarenesses on some interesting points... church / state, gay partnership issues, liquor, etc... and an understanding of and a clarity in these issues is valuable and important. What stumps me are the people expressing opinions that reflect their ignorance regarding the LDS church and its political influence over its membership (or lack thereof). I am an attending church member and have NEVER once been told, recommended, commissioned or otherwise coerced to vote for anything but my conscience. Furthermore, both prior to and since the election I have seen fellow members exercise great control in refraining from expressing their political views, opinions, satisfactions and / or disappointments in the latest political season. This has impressed me.

Those who think that the church, or its agents, consciously guide the membership to vote a certain way on merely political matters are greatly in error. Moral issues, such as the strict definition of "marriage," are another matter completely.

taxpayer 21 | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

to Kevin /6:53 a.m.
Thank you very much for your wisdom. By your standard those who don't pay taxes should stay out of politics. That would certainly help those who do pay the taxes to have better control of the terrible waste in government.

Where oh, where did this notion that just at the very moment a person is elected he/she is magically changed to be superior in intellect and wisdom than the rest of us?

Re: Wondering | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I don't think that you understand the seperation of church and state. A persons personal and religous views should not be seperated from their political views. If you lived in Boston the laws would be influenced by the catholic churc, Minneapolis the Lutheran Church, Texas the Southern Baptist etc. The LDS have just as much responsibility as any other group to vote and state their values. The LDS church is not endorseing any parties only taking stands on issues.

Mark | 7:24 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Kevin 6:53 a.m.:

You are actually arguing that we pay for rights? We may actually believe that if we were slave owners or bigots.

If we followed your line of thinking, Abolition and the civil rights movement would have never seen the light of day. Churches have always played a vital role in bringing moral issues to the American political system. Silencing American churches would be a great loss to us all.

Anonymous | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

"it would be great if I could get them on my health insurance" -Selig

...No it wouldn't. You already get too much as it is. I pay for your health insurance and don't feel it necessary that I should also pay for all your extended familie's insurance as well.

Typical democrat...thinking that things are owed to people on my dime.

Another stupid comment of her is that the people of utah don't need to rely on the government or churches, but rather the people of utah. Good luck with that one. Im not LDS but If the people of utah or the federal government can come up with half as good as a welfare program as the LDS, this world would be a better place.

Once again, typical democrat thinking that with money and more government all of our problems can be solved

Big Daddy Ute | 7:30 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

You wonder for a moment why those of us who were born in Utah, but are not Mormon, get so upset with this stuff. When is the meeting with the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake? When is the meeting with the other religious leaders of Utah? Why not make decisions in our legislature that benefit all Utahn's and not just those of the predominant religion? I was born here, pay taxes here, and have as much say as the leaders of any church.

uncannygunman | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Stupid question, but wouldn't it just be a lot simpler to allow gays to marry who they want to? The benefits being discussed in piece-meal legislation are just the benefits of marriage, why not make it an easy package deal like it is for straight people?

I also find it ironic that gay marriage gets opposed in the name of "preserving the traditional family," but that opposition is leading to discussion of extending substantial marriage benefits to relationships far outside the intimate relationship of a marriage (whether it be gay or straight). I'm a lot more comfortable with gay marriage than I am with sibling/niece/nephew/elderly parent marriage! Ewww!

Be careful what you wish for I guess.

Re: Utah resident | 7:38 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

You may be right that 40% may not be mormon.

I'm not arguing or advocating any side, but the truth is that the majority of those who are affluent and educated in Utah are mormons or have strong ties to the mormon church.

Typically, with money and education comes people who get elected into office. So, to me it is no surprise that 80% are mormon. It's funny that you would even question that.

Debbie | 7:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I find it funny that so many people seem to be up in arms because these legislators met with some LDS leaders. It is a courtesy and an opportunity for both to create a dialog. The legislators are aware that a majority of their constiuents are of that religious affiliation. I live in Georgia and our legislators meet with Baptist and Catholic leaders and I don't have a hissy fit!! Legislators meet with lots of groups: buisness leaders, neighborhood leaders, ethnic leaders and I bet they even meet with other religious leaders such as the Catholic diocese it just doesn't make the news. I have served in our local government and I welcomed the opportunity to talk to any group and hear their concerns and voice my opinions. I believe many presidents have met with popes over the years and I don't hear you squawking about that. Hum, is it maybe because it's the LDS church that gets your hackles up!?

Hopeless | 7:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The Church controls Utah, you all have to know that by now. It controls the lives of everyone living in Utah. Its main purpose is to control your family. The state representatives are puppets of the Church. What you have to ask yourself is, am I ok living here and can I put aside my prejudice I have toward the Church. That is what we as non members need to do to survive and to keep our families together, especially for those who are married to a member of the LDS church. We can only hope the the members of the Church that also represent us for our state government can put aside the burden of being a mormon and keep Church and State on different paths.

Read the Constitution Please! | 7:40 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The "Separation Clause" is actually for the Federal Government and doesn't apply to local governments. A state has their own rights (at least, that was the original intent). The intent was if you didn't like the local government, you could vote with your feet.

The aforementioned "separation" clause is actually in the Bill of Rights (Amendment 1):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The intent was that the federal government was not to establish a sponsored religion for the union. But, it also says immediately after that they shouldn't abridge the freedom of speech. You have to view the LDS Church as an interest group with the same right to speech and to petition the government as say the Unions or even...the GLBT groups do. Yes, the Church has the same rights as the GLBT to influence leaders and to push for (or against) legislation to be passed.

??? | 7:47 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

To 30 Sec Memory:

Shows how much you know since the church only used $1,200 dollars and that was for air fare and other travelling costs for general authorities travelling to California.

Also, the church has never been against civil rights. They have opposed certain bills where they didn't like the language that was used in writing them, like prop 8 and the women's rights bills. The church has come out and said they would support issues if they had be written differently.

Trust me, the church just doesn't come out and say things. They do their HW and meet with their lawyers before making a stance on civic/legal issues.

zippo | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The influence you all worry about. Hmmmmmm----How about the south with the Southern Baptists or the areas of NY or other states where the Catholics or Jews have strong influence. How about where the Quakers live. They must have some influence in the area they live. Golly gee boys and girls influence is in all parts of this nation. We have many enviormentalists living outside this state that try to influence what Utah does. Influence is influence. Get used to it no matter where you live.

Kevin | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

@Mark | 7:24 a.m.

As someone descended from abolitionist Quakers, you're point is taken.

But I'm standing by my view that all organizations that get directly involved in the shaping of our laws and constitutions should pay taxes. It's only fair. That's all 501(c)(3) organizations that lobby. That's all lobbyist organizations. We're always complaining about how D.C. is beholden to lobbyists. Well, they should pay taxes. Their tax break is our tax burden.

As for non-profits like churches, they are also affecting our markets by not having to pay property taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong. They can buy up as much land as they can afford and not pay taxes on it.

voter meeting? | 7:55 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

I'm born and raised in Utah. Now I'm 46 years old. I've been active all my life. It's mind boggling to think of how many church meetings I've attended. I have not yet once, attended a meeting where they told me how to vote. If you believe the church tells the 'brethren' how to vote, I worry for you.

Anonymous | 7:52 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Gays have every right that every other citizen in the state of Utah has...they can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. And if I were the LDS leaders, I would give the gays no quarter. I would tell them to get out, and quit persecuting those who opposed Prop 8, that this is a free country, and people should be able to vote their conscience with out fear of intimidation from goons like the gays.

Whine Not | 8:08 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

After reading the 33 posts available (at the time I read them) I have to say that BigDaddyUte makes the most sense. There is no reason why legislative committees shouldn't be meeting with representatives of other groups and religions in Utah. But, if those groups and religions have not formed a committee to take concerns to Utah's capitol hill, then I think it's high time to stop complaining about the LDS Church's influence and control, and get yourselves organized and voiced. Equalize the playing field. Stop whining and get organized. You can't have it both ways--complain about all the control of the Mormon Church, and then not get organized to create a real balance of opinion. So, complainers, do something more than complain. Get organized and get your voice represented on capitol hill.

Re: Hopeless 7:42 | 8:10 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

No, the Church and its members do not want to control your family. For all they care you can marry a pine tree or adopt your pet poodle. Fine, if you keep all of this private stuff, well, private.

The problem comes when you want legal and social recognition for your relationships. You want tax benefits and social recognition. You want society to protect your "relationahips." Then it becomes other citizens' business, and they just might evaluate the rationale of your decisions and the benefit of your relationships to society from the perspective of their own worldview.

To Hopeless | 8:11 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

You're hopelessly wrong! The Church's main purpose is not to control anybody, but to teach people how,through the atonement of Jesus Christ to free themselves, or keep themselves from ever getting entangled and "controlled" by the evils of the world. To bring joy into lives by creating a clean and wholesome atmosphere. Being a member of the church isn't a "burden". It's a blessing. Without it, Utah would be in the same shape as California, Nevada and other states that run on pleasing only the instincts, greed, lusts and immoral habits of man.

Utah and Utahns are not perfect. But at least there is a moral framework that can protect them if citizens of Utah (religious affiliation aside) will let it. So many folks out there( I don't live there anymore) seem bound and determined to destroy everything that makes Utah great by cracking that framework and acting like spoiled stubborn children throwing a tantrum when they don't get more and more of what isn't good for them.

Kudos to a state that attempts to protect people from themselves.

Funny | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

how you people are so paranoid about the church. Certainly, when you elected to live/stay in Utah you realized you were in a state founded by and made up largely of Mormons. I'm not suggesting you leave like some other naive commenters, I'm just saying is it really that much of a surprize to you that the church has influence on Utah?

Since over half of Utahn's are LDS they're just not supposed to have or voice their opinion huh? How ironic, Utah exists because of a group of people who weren't allowed elsewhere to have an opionion went to a barren wasteland where they could finally have a say in their government and now you want them to shut up in Utah too!

Instereo | 8:17 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

We all know the LDS church is the power behind the throne. Since the throne is republican in our state, I don't see why democrats would be surprised the church didn't tell them anything. The marching orders are going to go to the republicans in a similar meeting but the disucssions in the meeting won't be reported in the newspaper.

Immigration, please! | 8:20 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

So, I'm reading an article in a church-owned paper about lobbying efforts by the church and the only info you give me about immigration is that it was one of the three topics discussed.
What is going on here?
No wonder Godby went over to the dark side!

Yeah, the Church | 8:24 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

. . . does wield some influence in this state. Does hearing someone say that make you haters happy?

Why wouldn't the Church wield influence in a state inhabited primarily by its members? But, it's influence -- the Church itself does not have a single vote.

And, it should be noted that the Church uses an amazing amount of restraint in wielding its influence. Remember that the Democrat leadership walked out of the meeting with no clear guidance as to what the Church wants.

The bile exhibited never ceases to amaze. The haters' message is that we should listen to them, not Church leaders. And their fury stems from the fact we refuse to do so.

It's called freedom. Get over it.

luke | 8:25 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

look arguing about this is pointless, no one will ever come to an agreement on this subject. utah is a dominant religious state, yes the church has a strong hold on things here. i dont know what people are complaining about, let people who are gay do there thing, it leaves more women for us guys. do you think gay people like hearing about "straight" peoples marriage. at the same time things are not going to change here in utah, look if your gay and and you want to get married, then go somewhere you can because its not going to change for a while. the LDS religion will NEVER accept gay partnership thats just how it is.

George | 8:26 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Religions, next to any government, has brought more heartache, more depravity into this world than anything else. Where were these religions when it came to slavery (it is going on at this very moment in Sudan), to genocide (native-Americans)(Zimbabwe), to pedophile, to abortion; all either being a part of or totally ignoring what is happening.

If the mormon church wants to get involved, why aren't they at every Planned Parenthood outlet that is performing abortions?

As for my religion and my god it is Darwin, "survival of the fittest" everything within it makes sense.

To Read the Constitution: | 8:28 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates key provisions of the Bill of Rights and applies them to the States. This has been a bedrock of constitutional law for decades. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Know your constitutional law before accusing others of ignorance.

David | 8:27 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

re: hopeless

The Church controls Utah, because we, the church, make up the majority, and we, the church, like to listen to a certain group on advice on how things should be. So as long as we, the people, the church, are the majority, then we will continue to choose as we believe. If you don't like it, move to one of the other 49 states where this isn't the case.

washcomom | 8:28 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009

Everyone knows where the LDS church stands on morality issues. Liquor sales and gay "marriage" are moral issues, ones that conflict with the tenents of the church. Immigration is has its own nuances that weren't even discussed in this article. It seems to me to be another story to get the church to bend towards the gay agenda.

Page:
1
2
3
4
Next >

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.