Deseret News | Jennings defends Mormon faith via N.Y. newspaper

Reader comments
Jennings defends Mormon faith via N.Y. newspaper

234 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

Switch to Democratic party | 6:58 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Mormon candidates should switch to the Democratic party where they adhere to religious tolerance. It's sad that Republicans openly showcase their religious intolerance -- maybe we'll all learn a lesson here.

Non-Mormon | 9:04 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

I'm not Mormon, but I have great respect for Mormons, and I am overflowing with praise for Ken Jennings' letter. Beautifully put, funny but serious, hard to argue with. This man isn't just book smart, or game-show smart; Ken Jennings is a truly wise man.

Ernest T. Bass | 9:14 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Ken should read a little more history before he claims they "tearfully accepted" it.
That simply was not the case at all.
Otherwise, that was a decent article.

Comments continue below

der Altekrieger | 9:29 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

My Mother witnessed the effects of religious intolerance as a child in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s. I witnessed its effects overseas as a soldier in Afghanistan. Now, it becomes acceptable in our country to be intolerant, disguised of course, as intellectual or religious discourse. It is what is is: intolerance!, the fuel of hatred. Sugarcoat it all you want, it kills.

Sensible | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Anti-religion bigotry knows no political party boundaries. Many of the anti-Mormon comments of late have come from Democrats as well as Republicans.

Jennings' comments are insightful and erudite.

Republicans and faith | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

There is little comfort left when the democratic party is supposedly the bastian for those who are religious. This is the party that is behind the secularism of the world. Most democrats would prefer nothing more than to see all religion erradicated from all public forums.

In truth, it is the Republican party that, while it has certain intolerant members, truly advocates and encourages religion.

That, coupled with the self-reliant, local control, small government fundamentals makes the Republican party the logical choice for Mormons.

I am the first to admit that the neo-conservatives have led the Republican party down a path that takes it closer to the Democratic approach of having the government involved in every aspect of our lives. But, when push comes to shove, the principles of the Republican party mirror the principles of the Mormon faith.

Todd Weiler | 9:32 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

The last time I checked, Lawrence O'Donnell was a DEMOCRAT. His rant against Mormons has far out-striped anything from the Evangelical right. Face it folks, there are bigots in both parties.

Rose | 9:38 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Go Ken Go!

yea...that's right | 9:38 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Re: Switch to Democratic party - (laughing uncontrollably) that's right the democrats are the party of tolerance. I wonder who Lawrence O'Donnell voted for President.

Maury | 9:40 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

I was with Jennings up until the comment on counting the days until the election. I, for one, welcome the discussion, debate, and even the content of what Jennings submitted. We need to be more active in the world, even if we should not to be of the world.

In the end, it will help people of all faiths, improving civility, tolerance, and promotion of the type of values we need to promote in this world.

Chuckles55 | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Interesting to me that in Utah the lip-curling scorn and questions about one's parentage are directed at the Democrats. Maybe turn-about is really fair play as part of a larger scheme to teach us all a little more compassion.

R. Hansgen | 9:49 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Being a member of any party should have no bearing on one's religion. Go back and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many men and women throughout the ages have given up their lives (some literally) for this land and for the freedoms that we enjoy. Religion is a private matter and one that a person enjoys with conviction. No one has a right to dismiss another because of their religion. The Constitution also gives a right to ANY American citizen to run for office. That's what makes this country great and why many will sacrifice everything they have or own for it! God bless America! And..........Merry Christmas to all!

Thank You | 9:54 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Thank you Bro. Jennings. That's all there really is to say.

Re: Switch to Democratic party | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

I wish it were that simple. I think you are giving your beloved party a little bit too much credit. If Romney wins the nomination I'm afraid we will see that you are wrong-in a big way. The Mormon bashing would come pounding in from the Dems no doubt. This is a people problem not a party problem!

Dakotah | 10:02 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Joseph Smith lied about Polygamy for years. He 'married' the wives of some of his fellow leaders. Brigham had an 'oath of vengance' against the US Government in the Temple ceremony.
History shows what reality is and though these sound pretty bad they aren't any worse than many other religions and cults have in their past.

A Word to "Switch" | 10:14 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Yes, candidates of the leftist Democratic party are so tolerant and open-minded regarding religion that their brains sometime fall out. I can't wait to vote for one of them. Ha! That will be the day.

Huh? | 10:15 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

That last sentence, about high profiles and defense and widely read forums, is just bizarre and pointless. Carrie is simply uninformed and not widely read herself.

chuckles55 | 10:19 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Joseph's naively honest statement that God told him to join non of the extant religions because they were all wrong, put him squarely at odds with the professional ministry. To this day, they still fight that claim. The ministers are the back bone of the far right and what they say will sway that vote - away from Mormonism. If Mitt becomes the candidate, Hillary will win, which she just may do anyway because of the do-nothing Republican congress and a not so lustrious Republican president.

placebo | 10:26 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

ernest,

take your own advice. i can't speak for BY as i haven't read any biographies about him, but Bushman's recent biography certainly records a weeping JS regarding polygamy. you can spin it however you likeï¿½sincerity, insincerity, or the penance of an adulterous manï¿½but the record is there.

MT in MD | 10:27 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

The only reason the Democrats aren't making Mitt's religion an issue now is that he is not yet the GOP nominee. If he gets it, I think you can count on one hand the number of days it will take the Dems to start hitting his religion. Here in the nation's capital, the libs have been throwing out the "I'm moving to a country whose values line up with mine if Mitt Romney is elected Presdident" silliness since before he even officially announced his candidacy. It is not difficult to see the close parallels between Mormon Republicans and fundamentalist Muslims, apparently--Mitt will bring in the burqa on January 21, 2009, apparently. Ladies--please start sewing yours or place orders for them now, because there's going to be a rush on them in 13 months.

And please don't bring up Harry Reid, Mormon Senate Majority Leader to substantiate the claim that Dems are tolerant of all religions. Harry Reid is a known quantity to his Dem colleagues--he's not crazy. But the church as a whole is just a bunch of lunatic zealots. Reid (to them) is an exception to the rule.

Oh, and bravo, Mr. Jennings, for a great piece.

Ernest T. Bass? | 10:29 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

How about some facts to back up your assertion. Simply stating that "tearfully accepting" was not the case and that Mr. Jennings needs to read history does not disprove his statement. I would think that taking multiple wives would be a very difficult decision simply for the fact that you would have multiple mother-in-laws... Seriously though, at least show some examples, rather than proclaiming the Jeopardy champion who is an expert on all things trivial as uninformed or incorrect.

Democratic party? | 10:33 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Both parties have those in it that are bigoted towards religion. Let's not pretend that either party is immune to misrepresenting the religious beliefs of others. Al Sharpton needing to meet with Mormon Chuch leaders after his rant, and Mr. O'Donnel's tirade are just as pertinent of examples as Mike Huckabee's comments. Basically in politics anything typically goes if it is useful in discrediting your opponents, unless of course it backfires on you...

Melanie | 10:34 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Bravo, Ken Jennings!!!

grateful american | 10:35 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

I don't think that religion 'any religion' should be bashed. Our forefathers based our country on freedom. Freedom of religion, speech and so many more positives.Why the fixation on the mormon faith?
Kudos for anyone that stands up for their religion.

Lowell Steele | 10:38 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

To: Ernest T. Bass...
One whose mindset only allows lechery as motivation for the practice of polygamy will find "evidence" of same--the enemies of the LDS Church have been accommodating in that respect, facts notwithstanding. Were there lechers among 19th-century LDS practitioners? Only God knows that answer, and they will in turn have to answer to Him, as did King David, who perverted the practice to satisfy his lust. But then, I take an assumptive leap. If Mr. Bass is not convinced that ancient prophets were commanded to take more than one wife, he probably doesn't believe the Old Testament either. And if the Old Testament seems fable, then highly unlikely he'd believe that God could or would work through prophets in our time, let alone command them, against their will and at the peril of their standing in their families and the world, to take up what to them was an abhorrent practice.
On the other hand, what if there really is a God? An all-powerful, all-knowing God, Father of our spirits, who deeply loves His children, who stays in touch and blesses their lives? That, Mr. Bass, is really the first, and fundamental question to answer.

To Mr. Bass | 10:41 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Maybe you are the one who needs to read into the history of the church because there are many instances that are very clearly documented where prominent church leaders tearfully broke down not wanting to practice plural marriage. I am not suggesting that this was the case in every single instance. Yet, I do believe that this was the single hardest thing for the members of the church to accept but they did because as mr. jennings pointed out it was a commandment from a loving father in heaven. I hope as Mr. Jennings does that Latter-Day Saints will not be continually thrown under the bus by our fellow christians and believers in the same Glorified Being Jesus Christ because of differences in believes and doctrines. As a nation we must come together or else we will all fail.

A Member | 10:45 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Early Church members accepted polygamy as the Word of God. Most did not want to participate, but did so out of their faith in God. Not all members of the church were in polygamous relationships, but actually only a small percentage. It was a calling; that is, the participants were asked to enter into this order by church leaders. It was a difficult way to live for most people, although there were many who made it work for them. The government persecuted polygamists so much that many times the plural wives had to make do on their own without the help of their husbands, because the husband would have been arrested if he had come to the wives' homes. It is a principle God uses in various times of need, to build up His Kingdom, and probably also to test the faith of the people. I appreciate Ken's effort in defending our faith. I simply do not understand why people have such heartburn about "Mormons". We believe in Christ, we are Christians in every sense of the word. I would like to see Mitt as president. It would be nice to have someone honorable in there.

Anonymous | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Thanks Ken!

LDS Independent | 10:51 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

"Switch" has it right. Though I traditionally have leaned more to the GOP I have had it up to my eyeballs with the sleeze factor that oozes from the far right. And even moderate GOP candidates feel they must pander to them to get the nomination. Enough, already! Heaven knows Democrats have their problems but they are beginning to pale in the glare of the bigotry exhibited by the ever more prominent Republican right wing.

Party Discussion | 11:04 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Those of you that are trying to associate one party with a religion are ignorant. The LDS faith does not associate itself with one party or the other.

So quit trying to associate being a Mormon with a being a member of a particular party!!!!

jfb | 11:10 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Just a little historical note. It was the republicans who in the 1870's passed the Edmunds-Tucker act and led the war against the Mormons. It was Sam Houston and the Democrats that gave us what little protection which we had. When it was time for statehood the Mormons were virtually 100% Democrat. It was Brigham Young who felt we needed two parties and called half of the church to be Republicans. Some might think we went a little overboard.

Josh | 11:16 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Hey Ernest, I have read it and so, apparently, has Ken. When it was first announced to the Twelve, William Law plead with Joseph Smith not to announce it, saying(these are not verbatim quotes)if only he won't, this will be the greatest Christian church in history. To which Joseph replied(tearfully, if I'm not mistaken), You may be right, but I have no choice. I must announce it and the keys will be turned against me if I don't. Meaning he had been given a revelation and had a duty to follow through on it.

Probably this exchange with William Law was one of the instances referenced to by Ken Jennings.

AZ Reader | 11:16 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

I agree with Maury. Encouraging anonymity to avoid intolerance and persecution hardly seems consistent with the notion of "letting our lights so shine." The anti-Mormon attitudes currently being reflected in the public debate clearly did not materialize out of thin air because of Mitt's presidential campaign.

I have long thought that the most likely source of persistent and pernicious criticism and even persecution of the LDS Church will be from the evangelical right. And yet we often align ourselves with those folks in the political arena because we share many beliefs in the areas of social and governmental policy.

What we are now witnessing is the inevitable nastiness that occurs when an LDS member becomes a national political figure in the Republican party (Harry Reid has largely escaped such criticism because his stated positions are more aligned with the Democrat left).

So, whatever negatives may be coming from Mitt's campagin, ultimately it forces all of us to stand up and be counted for what we actually believe and not what some pundit or opposing political candidate claims we believe. That, ultimately, can only be a positive.

TYLER | 11:27 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

"Dakotah" I'd really love to see any proof you have of these alligations, preferably something with more credibility than the National Inquirer.

top hero | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Decent until the end: "If the only way to get Mormonism out of the arena is for Romney to be out of the race, I'm counting the days." I too hate being the punching bag and many have gone too far. However, a principle here is that a Mormon should be able to run for any office without mistreatment or bigotry--such as Gov of Mass, Majority House Leader, or Senator of Utah. Romney chose to run, and others have chosen slander. So be it. I'll be the punching bag if it means defending what is right.

2 bits | 12:15 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

It seems a bit obsurd to suggest Romney switch to a political party that openly accomodates abortion and homosexual relations, just to avoid being harrased for his religion. Seems like a bad trade-off to me.

It's also obsurd to assert that only Republicans would question his religious beliefs or even bring them up. Especially in light of the fact that most of the people attacking his faith are obviously Democrats (like O'Donnell and others in the media).

The question shouldn't be, "Which party will give me less grief about my religious background". The "Party's" approval shouldn't matter if it wasn't an issue to the American population or the media (which drives most of what us Americans consider "Popular/un-Popular" in our culture).

What I'm trying to say is... The party shouldn't matter if it doesn't matter to the people (people vote not parties). It shouldn't matter to the people, but evidently it does. That's just an unfortunate fact of life in our society.

Anonymous | 12:22 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

This was a well thought out and communicated defense of the faith. Nice job.

Trex | 12:27 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Wow. If he ever plays on the Jep. Alum Challenge he should sweep the "Religious Whitewashing" category.

Punchline | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Don't believe a bunch of crazy stuff if you don't want to be a punchline.

RE: Ernest T. Bass | 12:50 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Yet again Mr. Bass you have it competely wrong. YOU should read the history (as I have countless times). It paints a picture exactly as Ken told it. Very reluctant. Please try to take off your extreme Anti-mormon hat and look at it with just a little objectivity. But that may be too much to ask since there is so much hatred and we all know who is stiring it up. Same story, different century.

SLMG | 1:28 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

To Republicans and Faith, Helllo, I know this is hard for some of you to take but being a Mormon does not mean that we are required to belong to or vote for candidates of the Republican Party. There are plenty of us (mostly outside of Utah) that vote for candidates that are outside of the GOP. We do this because we do not have a sheep mentality and can think for ourselves. I am an independent voter which means I vote for the person that I feel will best represent me regardless of what party the they belong to. Please don't paint all LDS with your red Republican brush, it just ain't so. Jenning's article was spot on except the part about polygamy.

Saywhat? | 1:36 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Apparently it is more acceptable to the "conservative christians" to have a Clinton or a Kennedy type running our country than a man with principals, regardless of his religion. When does it become more acceptable to invite mistresses into the White House to engage in adultry than it is for a few men in history to marry and financially support more than one wife?

Sin City reader | 1:39 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY. The reason the "unchristian christians" have so much problem with the mormons is that to them religion is money in their pockets. As mormonism grows it takes a chunk out of their wallets.
Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare the platforms of the two parties and see which one most closely aligns with the words of the prophets. Harry Reid represents our state but he is an embarrassment to me and most of my associates.

Henry Drummond | 1:56 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Mormons are often surprised to hear their religious beliefs criticized, especially when they have never in their entire lifetime heard many of those beliefs taught in Mormon church meetings.

People have had these crazy ideas for a long time, they just never bring them up because it doesn't seem polite. Since politics lost any semblance of politeness years ago, they are bringing them up now.

Why not use this as an opportunity to emphasize how Mormons live and believe today? Going on rants about Mormon persecution is pointless. Nobody is being driven off their land. This is about education. Share your faith not your frustration.

If people want to bring up the past, perhaps you could point out everyone had some nutty ideas in the not so distant past. Every wonder why the Southern Baptists separated from the Northern Baptists? Ever checked into how many churches banned African-Americans from their pulpits and congregations? Have any idea how many of these self-righteous commentators belong to private clubs that used to ban Jews, Catholics, African-Americans, and even Mormons from membership?

What is important is what Mormonism has become and is becoming, not what it was.

Neither party is Right | 1:56 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

"Trex and Punchline's " post serves as a perfict example of what a godless, disrepectfull civilization that we have become here in America. Talk shows, blogs, Hollywood, if it feels good organizations and all media.

To:punchline | 2:03 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

You're right believing in Jesus Christ is crazy. If I'm not mistaken he's the one that said "love one another as I have loved you" Do you believe in Jesus Christ mr. Punchline? Obviously not because you feel that sort of teaching must be crazy....do you know what it's like to love?

Framingham | 2:06 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Here's the bottom line folks......outside of Utah, no one is listening to either Ken Jennings or Willard the Mittmeister. This is just another Mormon crash and burn event.

solution | 2:12 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

why don't we just make ken jennings president?

JAD | 2:19 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Let's revisit history. jfb brings up the Mormon myth of Bro. Brigham calling half of the Utah Mormons to be Republicans. This myth was dispelled in "Conflict and Compromise" a book written by J. Keith Melville. Mr. Melville ran for congress in Utah in 1968 as a Democrat. From Frank Cannon and Reed Smoot 'til the present, Utah has been lopsided in favor of the republican party.

LDS Film Graduate | 2:28 p.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Yeah - I graduated in film from the University of Utah - I'm LDS - I saw extremes but never on the side of religious zealots from those who share my faith. I did see extremes on the side of those who had been members of the church but then had turned against it. I wonder what Richard Dutcher is doing these days - tried to talk with him once about the artistic elements of film but his secretary told me "he has a 10 year plan" in place etc. - no go - My own faith? based on personal scripture study and yes, the Old Testament statement is so entirely accurate that nobody who sustains the bible as their own holy writ would substantiate claims that they didn't used practice plural marriage - talk to Abraham and David on that one - - - to Ken Jennings if you see this hats off! - good onya!

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
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.