Reader comments
Demos find LDS silent on issues
181 comments | Read story
John Pack Lambert | 1:03 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Debbie has a good point. In Detroit just south of where I live many of the
major political leaders constantly put the title "reverend" in front
of their name, and various ministerial groups have influence. Here in Macomb
County the Macomb Minesterial Allience, mainly made up of Pastors of African
descent in historically African-American churches, is constantly trying to
influence politics. Some people complain about what they do, but no one ever
claims that they have lost their right to try and influence politics by being
religious leaders, and they try to influence way more stuff way more often than
leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever do.
John Pack Lambert | 1:11 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I hope the 8:17 reporter does not believe the rubbish he is saying. He claims
that somehow the Republicans hold secret meetings with the leaders of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to get orders on how to operate.
He has to explain why if this is so the only General Authority to speak openly on political matter in the last 15 years was Marlin K. Jensen with his statement that church members could vote for the Democrat party and remain in good standing.
The reason the Republicans win in Utah is not because of some secret conspiracy, but because the Democrats acted like Bill Orton, the one democrat vitor in 1994 in Utah was not a Democrat at all.
It is because of the activities of Ross Anderson and other very public actions by Democrats, not because of any secret plans by Republicans and LDS Church leaders meeting in dark rooms, that Utah goes overwhelmingly for Reupublicans.
If the Utah Democrat Party would get it through its head that we love the unborn children, and stop trying to tell us the cold-blooded murder of millions of innocents is a non-issue than maybe they would win something.
He has to explain why if this is so the only General Authority to speak openly on political matter in the last 15 years was Marlin K. Jensen with his statement that church members could vote for the Democrat party and remain in good standing.
The reason the Republicans win in Utah is not because of some secret conspiracy, but because the Democrats acted like Bill Orton, the one democrat vitor in 1994 in Utah was not a Democrat at all.
It is because of the activities of Ross Anderson and other very public actions by Democrats, not because of any secret plans by Republicans and LDS Church leaders meeting in dark rooms, that Utah goes overwhelmingly for Reupublicans.
If the Utah Democrat Party would get it through its head that we love the unborn children, and stop trying to tell us the cold-blooded murder of millions of innocents is a non-issue than maybe they would win something.
Comments continue below
John Pack Lambert | 1:21 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 9:19 commentator,
The 60% figure that people constantly throw around for some reason is not the figure based on church membership statistics but is based on self-identification of religion figures. If you go with Church membership statistics for Utah, the figure is more around 70%.
The 60% figure that people constantly throw around for some reason is not the figure based on church membership statistics but is based on self-identification of religion figures. If you go with Church membership statistics for Utah, the figure is more around 70%.
Mypoint... | 1:26 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
If the LDS Church is the controlling influence in Utah politics, then the GLBT
groups must be the controlling influence in California politics. If you're
opposed to the church being involved here, then you must be opposed to gay
groups being involved in California. I don't remember the last time the
church overturned a vote of the people of Utah like the gay groups have been
able to do in California.
My point isn't that you've got to do away with either. It's that both represent large voting blocks and are considered special interest groups. Both have the right to meet with legislators and express their desires. That's the way government works.
My point isn't that you've got to do away with either. It's that both represent large voting blocks and are considered special interest groups. Both have the right to meet with legislators and express their desires. That's the way government works.
John Pack Lambert | 1:26 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
McCoy points out another reform Utah should undertake. In other states people
get elected to office by the people, not by party caucuses. McCoy was apointed
by a party Caucus, and then had the incumbent advantage when he next ran for
office.
Utah should reform its legislative selection system to have actual special elections when legislative seats are vacated so the people and not a political party can decide who will represent them.
Utah should reform its legislative selection system to have actual special elections when legislative seats are vacated so the people and not a political party can decide who will represent them.
RE: John Pack Lambert | 1:33 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I think missed the part about government telling what you can do with yout own
property or business, govenment contolling your property or business
You may not always like it, but people should have say over their own property.
Lfe (and people) isn't always fair.
The more we have allowed government to regulate and license, the more power and control they have over our lives our property and our business.
But we have a constitutinal republic,
and the majority people who live in an area will always have the greatest influence in the government in that area.
So even though you are of the opionion you should not tell people to move,
in our country, it is a realistic option.
You may not always like it, but people should have say over their own property.
Lfe (and people) isn't always fair.
The more we have allowed government to regulate and license, the more power and control they have over our lives our property and our business.
But we have a constitutinal republic,
and the majority people who live in an area will always have the greatest influence in the government in that area.
So even though you are of the opionion you should not tell people to move,
in our country, it is a realistic option.
Anonymous | 1:49 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
why do i keep hearing that memeber of the lds church are anti-gay? k we arent in
fact not everybody in utah, or california, are lds! we arent anti-gay we are
just pro male/female marriage! we arent standing outside of their homes and what
not destroying their property, or leaving white powder on their doorstep, what
the gays are doing is flat out terrorism, and if you dont think thats right then
look at what terrorists do, they terrorise people for what they believe in, we
have suffered many things and hope to endure all things. when your doing good
thats when satan works his best to try to bring you back down.
To JPL | 1:47 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
"The reason the Republicans win in Utah is not because of some secret
conspiracy, but because the Democrats acted like Bill Orton, the one democrat
vitor in 1994 in Utah was not a Democrat at all."
Maybe you shouldn't comment on Utah politics. We have a congressman right now, Jim Matheson, who is a Democrat. Stay with Michigan, sir.
Maybe you shouldn't comment on Utah politics. We have a congressman right now, Jim Matheson, who is a Democrat. Stay with Michigan, sir.
Anonymous | 1:50 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
John Pack Lambert | 1:11 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
"I hope the 8:17 reporter does not believe the rubbish he is saying. He claims that somehow the Republicans hold secret meetings with the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to get orders on how to operate."
The poster at 8:17 said no such thing. He merely said that Republicans will (or have) met with the LDS church too. The results of that meeting, as all Republican caucases in Utah, will be closed to the public and we will not know what occurs within that meeting.
Republicans have been meeting behind closed doors for years here in Utah. It is nothing new.
"I hope the 8:17 reporter does not believe the rubbish he is saying. He claims that somehow the Republicans hold secret meetings with the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to get orders on how to operate."
The poster at 8:17 said no such thing. He merely said that Republicans will (or have) met with the LDS church too. The results of that meeting, as all Republican caucases in Utah, will be closed to the public and we will not know what occurs within that meeting.
Republicans have been meeting behind closed doors for years here in Utah. It is nothing new.
To JPL | 1:52 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
"Utah should reform its legislative selection system to have actual special
elections when legislative seats are vacated so the people and not a political
party can decide who will represent them."
That will hurt Republicans too and they will never go for that. Democrats are merely dressing here in Utah, or flies buzzing around that rotten meat.
That will hurt Republicans too and they will never go for that. Democrats are merely dressing here in Utah, or flies buzzing around that rotten meat.
Diane | 2:01 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Since when did John Pack Lambert become an authority spokesmen for the LDS
church?
Anonymous | 2:04 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
It is sad that if someone raises a fair objection to the role of the Church, its
defenders tell the objector to leave. Why can't opposing views be raised
and discussed without the person being told that if they don't like it then
just leave the state? This just further supports the concept that Utah is
effectively controlled by the Church. Why does the Gov. or the legislature have
to wait to see what the Church position is before acting on public policy?
Would it not be better to then come out and say: "Utah is a
theocracy!" rather than pretending it is not? I miss the days when Utah
was fairly evenly divided between political parties and the influence of the
Church was more openly recognized. Now Utah, and as a result the Church, is
considered so Republican, and so right-wing, that many around the world will not
listen to the Gospel as taught by the missionaries. Short-term false and
politically-based piousness is harming the long-term interests of the Church.
John Pack Lambert | 2:09 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 1:33 commentator,
I think it is wrong to tell people to move.
However I will one more time reiterate that this is not my position alone.
This was a direct statement given by Elder M. Russel Ballard. For those who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this man is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. He holds the title of Apostle, like Peter, John, Paul and Matthew in New Testament times.
This is not a case of me putting my opionion out, but of me restating what this man said, which should at least be felt to be a substantially important statement by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I guess those not members of the church can feel uninfluenced by this statement, but they do not seem to be the people who generally tell others to move, although there are various possibilities on an open discussion board like this.
I think it is wrong to tell people to move.
However I will one more time reiterate that this is not my position alone.
This was a direct statement given by Elder M. Russel Ballard. For those who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this man is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. He holds the title of Apostle, like Peter, John, Paul and Matthew in New Testament times.
This is not a case of me putting my opionion out, but of me restating what this man said, which should at least be felt to be a substantially important statement by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I guess those not members of the church can feel uninfluenced by this statement, but they do not seem to be the people who generally tell others to move, although there are various possibilities on an open discussion board like this.
Janet L. | 2:11 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Re: B. YOUNG
You shouldn't tell people to leave Utah. Although you cannot even spell California ha ha! mentality is mentality and you must be a chip off the old B. young block.
You shouldn't tell people to leave Utah. Although you cannot even spell California ha ha! mentality is mentality and you must be a chip off the old B. young block.
Outsider | 2:41 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Mormons are 60/70 percent of the State. About 50% in Salt Lake County. If you
consider active Mormons to be half of those percentages, then non-Mormon and
inactive Mormons are a majority. Until that majority starts electing open
minded (ie. not beholden to LDS doctrine--but their own good judgement)
Democrats and Republicans, you will have the likes of Waddoups to lead the
legislature. People avoid moving to Utah for this painfully narrow attitude.
You need more leaders like your Governor.
awsomeron | 3:04 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
By shear numbers what the Church think on issues becomes relvent on many
issues.
You could have noithing against Gay Civil and Legal Rights, but strongly against Gay Marriage is between a Man and a Women. According to the Church, God, Scripture and the Voters of all faiths in California.
If members of the State House and Senate have Faith then Faith is going to have somthing to do with how they decide to vote on an issue this is normal.
People Elect People who they hope will carry out their wishes. i.e Control Minor Comsumption, Enfroce Marriage and Sex Laws, Stop Abortion, protect borders, allow No Lotteys etc.
People do not have to agree with people on everything. I have even sided wit the ACLU over the Years on a few issues. When they are right they are right. You need to wash the sheets in bleach and very hot water afterward but you do what you need to do.
All in all is the Election is not stolen, (Obama did win fair and square) people get what they vote for.
You could have noithing against Gay Civil and Legal Rights, but strongly against Gay Marriage is between a Man and a Women. According to the Church, God, Scripture and the Voters of all faiths in California.
If members of the State House and Senate have Faith then Faith is going to have somthing to do with how they decide to vote on an issue this is normal.
People Elect People who they hope will carry out their wishes. i.e Control Minor Comsumption, Enfroce Marriage and Sex Laws, Stop Abortion, protect borders, allow No Lotteys etc.
People do not have to agree with people on everything. I have even sided wit the ACLU over the Years on a few issues. When they are right they are right. You need to wash the sheets in bleach and very hot water afterward but you do what you need to do.
All in all is the Election is not stolen, (Obama did win fair and square) people get what they vote for.
LDS Leaders Silent? | 3:04 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
LDS leaders are "silent" on these issues?
Really?
Haven't they spoken out on these issues for a looooong time?
Here, I'll help the clueless editor who chose this story title (who really only wants to spur up dissension among the LDS and the non-LDS....):
- drinking alcohohol: it's wrong, don't do it.
- immigration issues: LDS members from ANY country believe in "honoring and obeying the law" so a person should come to America legal or don't come at all. And if they're here illegally, since they're breaking American law, they should go home as quickly as possible.
- homosexuality: it's wrong. Don't do it.
There. That was easy, wasn't it?....
Really?
Haven't they spoken out on these issues for a looooong time?
Here, I'll help the clueless editor who chose this story title (who really only wants to spur up dissension among the LDS and the non-LDS....):
- drinking alcohohol: it's wrong, don't do it.
- immigration issues: LDS members from ANY country believe in "honoring and obeying the law" so a person should come to America legal or don't come at all. And if they're here illegally, since they're breaking American law, they should go home as quickly as possible.
- homosexuality: it's wrong. Don't do it.
There. That was easy, wasn't it?....
Anon 808 | 3:09 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Being Silent does not mean that you do not care, or are not infavor of
somthing.
The Church Leaders might be Silent because for reasons that they only know.
Maybe Mitt is still considering his call to the 12.
Maybe they figure that comment is not necessary because those asking already know the answer and why spoil lunch.
The Church Leaders might be Silent because for reasons that they only know.
Maybe Mitt is still considering his call to the 12.
Maybe they figure that comment is not necessary because those asking already know the answer and why spoil lunch.
Running Moose | 3:11 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
What is wrong with the people of Utah telling people to move out or to get out
of Utah? The MORMONS do NOT own Utah. The land belongs to anyone who lives there
and owns apart of it. I would say that God is the owner of the earth and the
land there of and NOT the MORMONS.
Jeff BB | 3:19 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
If I hated muslims, I wouldn't move to the middle east.
If I hated budhists, I wouldn't move to the orient.
If I hated jews, I'd avoid Israel.
And if you don't care for Mormons, don't move to their epicenter.
LDS leaders, at the time of their expulsion, chose Utah because it was the most god-forsaken, harsh environment they could find. No one came with them and helped build Salt Lake City up from the desert floor. We moved as far away as we could, and built the best possible environment for our people. Now that Utah has become a pleasent place to live, you'd like nothing better than for us to leave again. Well alright. Pick the place, and if you promise to leave us alone this time we'll turn another terrible endroit into a paradise. Just no going back on your word this time.
If I hated budhists, I wouldn't move to the orient.
If I hated jews, I'd avoid Israel.
And if you don't care for Mormons, don't move to their epicenter.
LDS leaders, at the time of their expulsion, chose Utah because it was the most god-forsaken, harsh environment they could find. No one came with them and helped build Salt Lake City up from the desert floor. We moved as far away as we could, and built the best possible environment for our people. Now that Utah has become a pleasent place to live, you'd like nothing better than for us to leave again. Well alright. Pick the place, and if you promise to leave us alone this time we'll turn another terrible endroit into a paradise. Just no going back on your word this time.
Anonymous | 3:18 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
to--john pack lambert, You are not even a Utah person- you live Michigan, so
what make you such an expert on everything about the LDS church and government
of Utah? Don't you have a home where you live? Who are you to tell others
to move out of Utah when you do not even live here?
Anonymous | 3:33 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
John Pack Lambert needs to learn to shut up. He embarrasses himself and the LDS
church. I can't believe the censors actually let his rants through...it
should embarrass the church to have this guy defend them. With friends like JPL,
who needs enemies?
Anonymous | 3:34 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
@John Pack Lambert | 12:50 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
A poll tax is generally a tax to be paid as a prerequisite to voting. I'm not talking about individuals and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about lobbying organizations. I'm talking about influencing voting. Just as businesses pay taxes, such as the ones you mentioned, churches should pay taxes.
But I believe I am correct to say that churches don't pay income taxes or property taxes. Clearly, if they have an ownership stake in a for-profit business, taxes are paid.
Churches, especially the LDS Church, command enormous revenues, some of which comes from abroad. Sixty percent of their membership is foreign. It's an organization that uses money from abroad to influence domestic politics. And you don't think that money should be taxed?
A poll tax is generally a tax to be paid as a prerequisite to voting. I'm not talking about individuals and I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about lobbying organizations. I'm talking about influencing voting. Just as businesses pay taxes, such as the ones you mentioned, churches should pay taxes.
But I believe I am correct to say that churches don't pay income taxes or property taxes. Clearly, if they have an ownership stake in a for-profit business, taxes are paid.
Churches, especially the LDS Church, command enormous revenues, some of which comes from abroad. Sixty percent of their membership is foreign. It's an organization that uses money from abroad to influence domestic politics. And you don't think that money should be taxed?
Wow | 3:38 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
It's amazing the audacity of people to post when their information comes
from heresay and email fwds.
1) Republican legislators in Utah often consult the LDS church on how they should vote
2) Governments not legally recognizing a couple and by extension not awarding benefits/protection because of that recognition is discrimination. DOMA and ammendments banning gay marriage will all go down as unconstitutional.
3) If you think all gays are terrorists because of a few acts of vandalism and 1 instance of white powder, then I think all straights are terrorists for every gay beating, murder, and act of vandalism that they do. All those people that yell f*ggot out of their car window as they drive off are terrorists for trying to instill fear in the LGBT population.
1) Republican legislators in Utah often consult the LDS church on how they should vote
2) Governments not legally recognizing a couple and by extension not awarding benefits/protection because of that recognition is discrimination. DOMA and ammendments banning gay marriage will all go down as unconstitutional.
3) If you think all gays are terrorists because of a few acts of vandalism and 1 instance of white powder, then I think all straights are terrorists for every gay beating, murder, and act of vandalism that they do. All those people that yell f*ggot out of their car window as they drive off are terrorists for trying to instill fear in the LGBT population.
Life time Utahn | 3:44 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I've lived in this state my entire life. I am not LDS. I have never felt
pat of this state. Don't kid yourself, the LDS Church indirectly and
informally runs this state. The rest of us really don't matter
shellwii | 4:22 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Why is the legislature having lunch (an annual luncheon at that) with the LDS
church to discuss issues? Did I miss something? Afater 50 years in this state I
never stop being amazed.
CA LDS | 4:52 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
If you look at Utah with an open mind you will see a State that was built
primarily by people of LDS faith. Other people over time have migrated to the
State for a variety of reasons but it well known to be a Conservative and
strongly religious State. If you look at CA it is mostly liberal and secular. I
can complain about CA all that I want to, but that will not make it change to
something I am more comfortable with. Sometimes you can buck the system as we
did with Prop 8 but as long as I stay here I have to realize it is what it is. I
choose to stay and deal with it as those in Utah should realize they live in a
State that will remain politically connected to LDS Church for a very long time
to come as most people of faith do not turn off what they believe when they
enter a voting booth.
re JPL | 5:02 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
No, the Church-owned Deseret News in a recent article about higher sales at the
DABC quoted LDS Membership being at 60 percent in Utah, the SL Trib in a
previous article estimated LDS membership in Utah slightly lower in the high
50's. We actually live here, not in Michigan, so I think we know.
magnus | 5:03 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
@ Wow
I think there needs to be a separation here. first of all, not all Mormon Legislators are Republican, and second they may wonder what the LDS churches official stand on an issue is and seek that council as part of their personal moral standard but in general they to not ask the church "how to vote".
Besides, when did asking an organisation how they would like people to vote on something become the exception to the rule? Last time I checked just about every polititian in the world is taking marching orders from somebody, wether it be church or political party or special interests they are all following someones agenda.
@Life time Utahn
You are right of course. The Church indirectly runs the state because it guides the morals of a super-majority of the people.
I just don't understand why there is so much animosity with the minority over it?
The overwhelming majority of the people of a democratic society exercise their rights and the minority insists they are being treated unfairly.
So it would be more fair for the vast majority to be forced to live by the law and will of the minority?
I think there needs to be a separation here. first of all, not all Mormon Legislators are Republican, and second they may wonder what the LDS churches official stand on an issue is and seek that council as part of their personal moral standard but in general they to not ask the church "how to vote".
Besides, when did asking an organisation how they would like people to vote on something become the exception to the rule? Last time I checked just about every polititian in the world is taking marching orders from somebody, wether it be church or political party or special interests they are all following someones agenda.
@Life time Utahn
You are right of course. The Church indirectly runs the state because it guides the morals of a super-majority of the people.
I just don't understand why there is so much animosity with the minority over it?
The overwhelming majority of the people of a democratic society exercise their rights and the minority insists they are being treated unfairly.
So it would be more fair for the vast majority to be forced to live by the law and will of the minority?
ummm....... | 5:50 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Church officials were careful to say they would take no public stand on bills
before they were written and available for review. And they were Silent except
to reiterate their position on moral issues. IS THIS A NEWS FLASH TO ANYONE?
They had lunch. Is this the story? Cause I think Politicians will have lunch with anyone if they think they will get something out of it. And the LDS church gave them nothing. Shocking!
They had lunch. Is this the story? Cause I think Politicians will have lunch with anyone if they think they will get something out of it. And the LDS church gave them nothing. Shocking!
Kevin | 5:53 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
@magnus | 5:03 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009 wrote:
"The Church indirectly runs the state because it guides the morals of a super-majority of the people.
I just don't understand why there is so much animosity with the minority over it?
The overwhelming majority of the people of a democratic society exercise their rights and the minority insists they are being treated unfairly."
--------
I for one don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, except for two things. A minor point perhaps is that we are more of a representative republic than a majoritarian democracy. Thank goodness for that.
The other point has to do with church influence. Though individuals of a church may collectively execute the will of it's leaders, my view is that adherence to church mores should be voluntary.
In other words, if a church says a condition of membership is not to drink or not to engage in homosexuality, that's fine. When church dictates to a majority that then influences the lives of a minority (or merely otherwise responsible citizens), we've got a big problem.
As a result, you will find, in order for the people to achieve freedom, your church will face fierce criticism.
"The Church indirectly runs the state because it guides the morals of a super-majority of the people.
I just don't understand why there is so much animosity with the minority over it?
The overwhelming majority of the people of a democratic society exercise their rights and the minority insists they are being treated unfairly."
--------
I for one don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, except for two things. A minor point perhaps is that we are more of a representative republic than a majoritarian democracy. Thank goodness for that.
The other point has to do with church influence. Though individuals of a church may collectively execute the will of it's leaders, my view is that adherence to church mores should be voluntary.
In other words, if a church says a condition of membership is not to drink or not to engage in homosexuality, that's fine. When church dictates to a majority that then influences the lives of a minority (or merely otherwise responsible citizens), we've got a big problem.
As a result, you will find, in order for the people to achieve freedom, your church will face fierce criticism.
SM | 6:06 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To PI Attorney: The point you miss is that the wrongful death designee is part
of the decedents "family". What is wrong with that person trying to
recover for the economic loss they experience from the loss of the person that
designated them and who shared a mutually supportive and economically
interdependent relationship with the decedent. In many cased, the designee will
have more of a relationship with the decedent than the parents. Why
shouldn't the wishes of the decedent and the relationship of the decedent
and the designee be recognized and respected. If a person is allowed to give
all his or her property to a single individual (even a complete stranger) over
parents, why is there a problem with the decedent saying they want the designee
to have a stake in the wrongful death action?
Anonymous | 6:07 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
knowing that lambert does not live in Utah does help explain many of his strange
comments.
@Diane | 6:11 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Wow Diane you must be new to these boards John anointed himself leader of the
LDS church and the God of the threads long ago. Sit back and relax he will be
more then happy to tell you what your opinion is� it takes
all that hard stuff like thinking out of life. Lol
@Diane | 6:15 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
oh and I forgot to tell you don't worry about facts or reality John will
help you see that the twisted world he has created in his mind is the only
reality or facts that matter.
Oh and John before you go flattering yourself to much. No I really don�t care what you think and do not bother even reading your post anymore. If I need a good laugh I go to the funny papers.
Oh and John before you go flattering yourself to much. No I really don�t care what you think and do not bother even reading your post anymore. If I need a good laugh I go to the funny papers.
John Pack Lambert | 6:29 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Yes Jim Matheson is a democrat, but he has also supported the ban on
partial-birth abortion and endorsed Admendment 3. He understands, which is more
than I can say for a lot of Utah democrats.
Also, nothing in my statements is contradicted by Jim Matheson's existance. The seat he holds in congress was held by Republicans from 1995-2001.
Also, nothing in my statements is contradicted by Jim Matheson's existance. The seat he holds in congress was held by Republicans from 1995-2001.
re: Janet L | 6:33 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
--Why I never, Brigham Young is my ancestor and he would chase and run every
last one of you herritics out of Utah if he were living today. You people just
need to wisen up and do us all a favor and GET-OUT!
John Pack Lambert | 6:33 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 1:52 commentator,
I never said that my ideas would help or hurt a particular party.
What it would do would be to give Utah politicians who better reflect their entire district instead of ones who are extreme partisans of either party.
In fact, it might actually make it so some 3rd party candidates might actually win in Utah for once. There are many possible outcomes of such a reform.
The reason I want it is so the people and not political elites will decide who represents the people. I think it is wrong that someone can become a legislator without winning any election.
I never said that my ideas would help or hurt a particular party.
What it would do would be to give Utah politicians who better reflect their entire district instead of ones who are extreme partisans of either party.
In fact, it might actually make it so some 3rd party candidates might actually win in Utah for once. There are many possible outcomes of such a reform.
The reason I want it is so the people and not political elites will decide who represents the people. I think it is wrong that someone can become a legislator without winning any election.
John Pack Lambert | 6:38 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 3:04 commentator,
The church has never spoken against undocumented immigration in the unilateral and uncaring way you do.
You avoid dealing with the fact that many undocumented immigrants are fleeing for their lives from governments that are trying to kill them but since they are "frienly" governments to the United States we refuse to classify people fleeing them as refugees.
The fact of the matter is that many undocumented immigrants came here unwillingly when they were little children. Is it right to punish the children for the sins of the fathers?
I think we should pass the dream act as well as many other things.
However, what is abundantly clear is that you have chosen to ignore the statments on the immigrantion issue put out by actual leaders of the church such as Marlin K. Jensen.
The church has never spoken against undocumented immigration in the unilateral and uncaring way you do.
You avoid dealing with the fact that many undocumented immigrants are fleeing for their lives from governments that are trying to kill them but since they are "frienly" governments to the United States we refuse to classify people fleeing them as refugees.
The fact of the matter is that many undocumented immigrants came here unwillingly when they were little children. Is it right to punish the children for the sins of the fathers?
I think we should pass the dream act as well as many other things.
However, what is abundantly clear is that you have chosen to ignore the statments on the immigrantion issue put out by actual leaders of the church such as Marlin K. Jensen.
John Pack Lambert | 6:45 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 3:18 commentator,
I may have been unclear, or maybe comments just got confused.
I never told anyone to move out of Utah.
I adamantly said that people never, ever should say such things. I merely was denouncing other people for such unkind and rude statements.
I did not say people should leave Utah.
Why do I know things about the LDS Church. Well, I have been a member of it my entire life and have studied many things on it.
I lived in Utah for about 3 and a half years, took a couse in Utah history, and have followed many developments.
I believe my views on the 1994 elections showing why Utah Democrats fail come largely from having read Thomas G. Alexander's history of Utah. Alexander is a Democrat for whatever it is worth.
I thought it was clear, but let me say it one more time. I believe everyone has the right to live in Utah, and the only reason I way into the "you should move" discussions is to tell the people who start them that they are out of line with such statements.
I may have been unclear, or maybe comments just got confused.
I never told anyone to move out of Utah.
I adamantly said that people never, ever should say such things. I merely was denouncing other people for such unkind and rude statements.
I did not say people should leave Utah.
Why do I know things about the LDS Church. Well, I have been a member of it my entire life and have studied many things on it.
I lived in Utah for about 3 and a half years, took a couse in Utah history, and have followed many developments.
I believe my views on the 1994 elections showing why Utah Democrats fail come largely from having read Thomas G. Alexander's history of Utah. Alexander is a Democrat for whatever it is worth.
I thought it was clear, but let me say it one more time. I believe everyone has the right to live in Utah, and the only reason I way into the "you should move" discussions is to tell the people who start them that they are out of line with such statements.
Re :6:33 Huff & Puff | 6:47 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I don't believe Brigham Young was quite as mean as you are. You are a very
sad case of a very bad LDS person who throws fits when they don't get their
way. God help you with your judgmental and bigoted hate. Oh yeah, I'm LDS
too. and I probably have more important ancestors then yours.
Politics and Taxes | 6:54 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Why should churches pay taxes just because they politic moral issues? If one
must pay taxes to politic then those on welfare could not vote, neither could
the poor college student, nor the business owner with excessive write-offs,
etc.
Laws must apply to broad categories of people. Those who make the laws should never know in advance to whom they apply (the Brits ignored this when they passed the stamp act and other laws targeting the Americans).
Because religion is a right (gift) specifically listed in the constitution they are exempt from property tax. Any organization has a right to lobby (or listen) to politicians.
Laws must apply to broad categories of people. Those who make the laws should never know in advance to whom they apply (the Brits ignored this when they passed the stamp act and other laws targeting the Americans).
Because religion is a right (gift) specifically listed in the constitution they are exempt from property tax. Any organization has a right to lobby (or listen) to politicians.
John Pack Lambert | 7:58 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To the 5:02 commentator,
In the 2008 LDS ChurchAlmanac they give the percentage of Church members in Utah as 72% as of year-end 2006. Unless there have been major demographic changes in Utah in the last two years than this is a good figure. If you go back to the year end 2003 figure it was 71.9%. So unless you believe the situation has changd way more in the last two years than in the previous three years, than you need to accept that the 60% figure is based on people's self-identification.
This is in many ways a valid way to calculate percentages of adherents to a given religion, but you can not than extrapolate based on activity rates that include people who have their names on the records of the church but who no longer identify with the church in any way.
My point is that when asked their religion, 60% of the people in Utah will say they belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This does not mean they ever go to church or follow its teachings or doctrines, but it means they self-identify with it.
In the 2008 LDS ChurchAlmanac they give the percentage of Church members in Utah as 72% as of year-end 2006. Unless there have been major demographic changes in Utah in the last two years than this is a good figure. If you go back to the year end 2003 figure it was 71.9%. So unless you believe the situation has changd way more in the last two years than in the previous three years, than you need to accept that the 60% figure is based on people's self-identification.
This is in many ways a valid way to calculate percentages of adherents to a given religion, but you can not than extrapolate based on activity rates that include people who have their names on the records of the church but who no longer identify with the church in any way.
My point is that when asked their religion, 60% of the people in Utah will say they belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This does not mean they ever go to church or follow its teachings or doctrines, but it means they self-identify with it.
But people forget... | 9:04 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
that many people on the roles do not participate! Having names on records do not
a "member" really make. My neighborhood is typical with about a 30%
"activity" rate (of the members). Combined with the other 30 to 40
percent that are not on the "roles" makes few people that actually go.
The church and their "record keeping" has much misinformation.
Anonymous | 11:18 p.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I wish the church I belong to would keep quiet on political issues, with VERY
rare exceptions.
Why am I..... | 5:28 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009
still living in Utah. Colorado here I come!!
Infidels | 8:42 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009
I have been hearing so much disparaging words against the mormon church or for
that matter Utah; but as of yet I have yet to hear of anyone being beheaded,
having their hands or feet chopped off, having their eyes torn out, anyone being
stoned.
I would suggest to those people who actually believe that Utah is a theocracy and it is controlled by the mormons take a trip to Saudi Arabia, Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, Iran, Syria; and actually experience what this area's religion is all about.
You'll come back to the states with a more appreciation to what religious freedom is all about.
I would suggest to those people who actually believe that Utah is a theocracy and it is controlled by the mormons take a trip to Saudi Arabia, Mecca, Medina, Kuwait, Iran, Syria; and actually experience what this area's religion is all about.
You'll come back to the states with a more appreciation to what religious freedom is all about.
hahaha | 8:51 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009
This is funny to ready. Just people talking and bashing eachother repetively.
It doesn't make a differance. Just respect eachother.
Jim | 9:10 a.m. Jan. 9, 2009
No. The LDS Church does not "run things" in Utah, the people do. The
majority rules, just like they do in the other 49 states.
Speaking of the members of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was once asked how he governed such a large group of people. He said something like, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."
The same is the case today. It is the people of Utah who are governing themselves according to the principles of the majority.
If one does not like those principles, they are free to go to states like California, Illinois, or Louisiana, where they likely will find different principles being followed.
Speaking of the members of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was once asked how he governed such a large group of people. He said something like, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."
The same is the case today. It is the people of Utah who are governing themselves according to the principles of the majority.
If one does not like those principles, they are free to go to states like California, Illinois, or Louisiana, where they likely will find different principles being followed.
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.
- Sloan scores 21 for Texas A&M 8:26 p.m.
- Ovechkin has two goals in win 8:17 p.m.
- Knicks get 3rd straight victory 8:10 p.m.
- USU shooters struggling so far 8:02 p.m.
- Toskala wins in return for Maple Leafs 7:55 p.m.
- Suh wins Nagurski Trophy 7:51 p.m.
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke 7:47 p.m.
- Packers take 3-0 lead after 1st 7:41 p.m.
- Nuggets spoil AI's return to Philly 7:39 p.m.
- Brodeur earns 103rd shutout 7:37 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
277 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing256
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl202
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry191
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas142
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage140
- Letters: Global warming a lie134
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil131
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
Latest comments
I'm sure Native American would say the same about you and me. That our...
I applaud Christianson's efforts. We all have to look inward and ask...
that's True true true true true true true true true true true true true true...
Utah game is BYU's BCS bowl game. So, I guess BYU already broke their bowl...
Holmoe still hasn't done anything...
In, MWC: Tier-1 (BCS teams): Utah, TCU Tier-2 (BCS chasers): AFA, BYU...
You're mistaken Edward, they are native...here 10,000 years ago before they...
You are so right on! Even CBS Sports last week said that the Justice...
Many more babies sleep with parents than not globally. On different styled...
wow, Jan has a lot of questions...
Advertisements
Whatever the virtue of your propety rights claim, it has been illegal to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of their race or religion since 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
For what ever it is worth the First Presidency had endorsed the Civil Rights Act in 1963.
I do not know where you live, but if you live in Utah and your attitude is that of many people who rent in that state, than we may have to alert some government agencies to do some investigations in Utah.
Here in Macomb County, Michigan at least people who rent with your attiude quickly learn that they do not understand the law when they start getting fines for refusal to rent to people of African descent.