Comments about ‘Journalists urged to allow Mormons to define themselves’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 8 2011 5:07 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Deuce
Livermore, CA

To: atl134 | 7:24 p.m. Dec. 8, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT - If you are going to bring the Bible into this discussion, then you know what Christ said regarding gay/lesbian relationships/marriage. I am not LDS nor do I necessarily support their position on everything. When you make a statement and use the Bible to back something up, be sure and mention what was exactly said.
To: Pagan | 5:33 p.m. Dec. 8, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT - same old argument I have seen 100 times. To some Prop 8 is a moral issue and to some it is an equality issue. All churches have a right to make a statement regarding moral issues they perceive. All groups and individuals have the right to make a statement regarding civil issues they perceive. That is why this issue is now in the courts. Be sure and understand both sides when joining the discussion.

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"Own it or decannonize it."

Ranch- In telling us how to interpret our own cannon, you have only shown that you either didn't understand the article or you chose to ignore it. To make such a demand on an article about Brother Otterson challenging that very practice is quite something.

The practice of defining Mormon beliefs or the interpretations thereof is best left up to the faithful members of the church. If you want to understand the doctrine of the LDS Church, let others explain it for you.

First, you failed to include the very real doctrine of ongoing revelation. Just because we said one thing then and what seems to be another now, does not mean that the previous belief is negated, invalid, or even conflicting by our understanding of the two beliefs.

Second, the United States constitution did not protect gay marriage when it was written. It didn't even protect half of what we allow on our streets today back then. So please understand that while the constitution was made for a moral and righteous people, so was our scriptural cannon. In 50 years those words will seem even more hypocritical; but WE changed, not doctrine.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

lets try this a third time Dn "moderators." maybe the LDS church should show the same type of behaviors towards others that they are asking from the press. its funny that the LDS church and DN are so quick to take offense but think nothing of causing it.

Mr. Bean
Salt Lake, UTah

@atl134:

"Marriage isn't even in the constitution, but an equal protections clause is."

If you're saying the equal protection clause applies to homosexual marriage you may have a problem. Everyone, including homosexuals can marry anyone they wish... as long as the person is of the opposite sex.

Further, if you think the equal protection clause should allow homosexual marriage then, by rights, it should also allow all other conceivable combinations of marriage such as polygamy, cousins marrying, siblings marrying, fathers to daughters, mothers to sons, etc, etc, etc. You don't wanna go there, do you?

--------------------

@atl134:

"Marriage isn't even in the constitution, but an equal protections clause is."

And so is the Supremacy Clause... which tells us that federal law supersedes state law where there are disparities. The 'Defense of Marriage Act' (one man to one woman) is a federal law.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mr. Bean
"Everyone, including homosexuals can marry anyone they wish... as long as the person is of the opposite sex."

Once upon a time everyone could marry anyone they wished... as long as the person was of the opposite sex and same race.

"Further, if you think the equal protection clause should allow homosexual marriage then, by rights, it should also allow all other conceivable combinations of marriage such as polygamy, cousins marrying, siblings marrying, fathers to daughters, mothers to sons, etc, etc, etc. You don't wanna go there, do you?"

You sound like someone who opposed interracial marriage. Making one thing legal does not require making everything else legal.

"And so is the Supremacy Clause... which tells us that federal law supersedes state law where there are disparities. The 'Defense of Marriage Act' (one man to one woman) is a federal law. "

Supremacy clause is what threw out prop 8 due to the federal constitution. As for DOMA... incidentally that's also in the courts and I think was ruled unconstitutional in new york.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

so it strikes me that the same people calling on the news industry to refer to the lds church as Christian are the same people alway rallying against this same type of political correctness when it comes to any other group under the sun.

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

@ atl134 | 7:24 p.m. Dec. 8, 2011

Whoa! Hold your horses, amigo!

You are assuming that Prop 8 goes against LDS doctrines because Latter-day Saints are supposed to uphold the Constitution and that Prop 8 is "un-Constitutional".

"Houston, we have a problem here", and I think I just found it.

No, atl134, Prop 8 is most definitely NOT "un-Constitutional".

Got any other tough questions for me?

wrz
Salt Lake, UTah

@skeptic:

"The problem with asking Mormons to define themselves is that Mormonism and the LDS church is in constant change."

All churches change over time. The Mormon Church is probably the church that changes its doctrine the least among all churches.

"What was preached yesterday is not what is preached today and it will still be different tomorrow..."

I think you might be talking about the Christian Holy Bible... where it describes, for instance, about stoning sinners... then later to only love them.

"...what history and scripture is not changed is down played or not acknowledged. It is not easy to define or understand; and if one has a fair understanding of its entirety then it is hard to believe."

You need to try to understand what Paul of the Christian Bible meant when he said: 'for now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face...' 1 Cor 13:12

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Amazing thread.

For a Church spokeman to ask journalists to allow the Church to define themselves turns into a discussion of Prop 8 in California, where, by-the-way, several Churches, including the Catholics were against Prop 8. For some reason, it was OK for all the other Churches and for the voters themselves to be against it, but heck, the Mormons saw to it that it was defeated. What strong political influence they must wield in that State, so as to "undo" the US Constitution.

Then there's all the "false, damning and changed or ignored doctrine" that believers just sweep under the rug. That's an amazing point of view, too, since that "justifies" leaving the Church, forever to condemn it and everyone that embraces it.

On both counts.......Give me a break.

Mr. Bean
Salt Lake, UTah

@atl134:

"Once upon a time everyone could marry anyone they wished... as long as the person was of the opposite sex and same race."

Race marriage ban was tossed based on equal protection... However, barring same sex marriage does not violate equal protection since no one is barred from marriage. DOMA documents marriage definition.

"You sound like someone who opposed interracial marriage. Making one thing legal does not require making everything else legal."

If you're going to legally define marriage to include men marrying men and women marrying women you have opened the door for all aberrations and combination of marriage. And I'm confident there will be people coming forth demanding such aberrations.

"Supremacy clause is what threw out prop 8 due to the federal constitution."

Wrong. There's no federal homosexual marriage law to apply supremacy to. In fact DOMA is the guide to which supremacy is to be applied.

"As for DOMA... incidentally that's also in the courts and I think was ruled unconstitutional in new york."

Wrong. New york courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. I think any repeal of DOMA effort died in the US Congress.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@The Caravan Moves on
"Prop 8 is most definitely NOT "un-Constitutional"."

Send that argument to the Prop 8 legal defense team because they were utterly humiliated in that court case where Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional.

@wrz
"The Mormon Church is probably the church that changes its doctrine the least among all churches."

You have nothing backing that up at all do you?

@toosmartforyou
"For some reason, it was OK for all the other Churches and for the voters themselves to be against it, but heck, the Mormons saw to it that it was defeated."

LDS members donated 50% of funds and 75% of volunteer hours to the Prop 8 side while being 2% of CA's population. Disproportionate amounts of work are what attract the disproportionate blame.

@Mr. Bean
"Race marriage ban tossed based on equal protection... barring same sex marriage does not... since no one is barred from marriage."

Racial marriage bans didn't bar anyone from marriage either.

"Wrong. There's no federal homosexual marriage law to apply supremacy to."

The Constitution is supreme; that's what threw Prop 8 out.

DOMA was thrown out in federal court; Boehner railed against Obama for not defending it in appeal, remember?

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

FreedominDanger writes

"The practice of defining Mormon beliefs or the interpretations thereof is best left up to the faithful members of the church."

Seems reasonable, on the face.

However, I have seen convoluted answers to very strait-forward questions to church leaders.

Even on today's DN there is a disagreement even among LDS as to whether a "planet" is possible in the afterlife.

The question of whether God was once a man was "sidestepped" in a Time interview.
The idea that man may become a God virtually never answered in terms that one can understand.

You don't get the option of answering based on how you want to be viewed or gloss over teachings that make you uncomfortable with those outside the faith.

The concept of Milk before Meat, depending on how it is handled, can be seen as untruthful.

So, if you want to "define yourselves" be truthful, forthcoming and consistent.

Otherwise, people will look elsewhere for answers.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

@WTZ:
I appreciate the valid points you present however, it is difficult to reconcile the changes with the notion that god and his word is never changing; so why would Mormon doctrine on god was man and man may become god change, presthood holder requirements, plural marriage, temple rituals, etc, etc. It seems much of it has to do with politics more than religion or god. Therefore, a Mormon of yesterday will have a different view of the church than a Mormon of today. What is one to believe. Does god and his word change with man's world and time. Who is god and who is man. It is much like the capricious Greek gods of mythology.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

atl134

You should know by now that you lose an argument when you denegrate the person by playing the race card i.e. Mr. Bean. So "You Lose".

I think the "Articles of Faith" answers all any outsider needs to know about the LDS belief. We as members should be handing out the cards by the thousands in the coming year.

If people have a problem with the LDS Church believing it is "the truth", then ask if they think their religion or belief system is true. If "yes" then that's the same as us. If "no" then ask why they bother with it.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

Same sex relationships can never be defined as marriage. Marriage is called a 'holy state of matrimony' because it is.

Kami
Bountiful, Utah

That is everyone dream!! To define oneself the way we see ourself and hope that everyone else believes it. How others see us is usually a more accurate description. If we think others aren't seeing us as who we really are, then we need to change something about ourself. This is true for individuals and organizations.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'I think any repeal of DOMA effort died in the US Congress.' - Mr. Bean | 11:31 p.m. Dec. 8, 2011

Reply:

'The Constitution is supreme; that's what threw Prop 8 out.
DOMA was thrown out in federal court; Boehner railed against Obama for not defending it in appeal, remember?' - atl134 | 1:08 a.m. Dec. 9, 2011

*'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/14/11

ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban...'

*'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

'...in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. (sic)
'The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'

Prop 8 was ruled down due to judge Walkers 136 page report. It was validated by the 9th circut court.

DOMA factually prevents Medicare and adoption rights married couples enjoy.

As such, it fails as well.

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Skeptic: I have a few answers that in fact reconcile the doctrine that God is unchanging, and our practices changing.

The first doctrine you referenced has not changed. It is one of our core beliefs. It is also in the D&C and the FAIR apologetic group has a great article on this doctrine found in the Bible.

God's priesthood, ordinances, and any other doctrine have never changed. We as a people change. Just as a parent may allow one child to do something, and restrict another. Did the parent or their doctrines change? No, but their children are different with different needs and sometimes different rules that satisfy the SAME parental desires or moralities.

JoeBlow: the existence of disagreement does not invalidate my claim. However, 'line upon line' and 'everyone being imperfect' invalidate each claim used to contend with me.

"You don't get the option of answering based on how you want to be viewed"

Actually I GET, or rather have the option to not even answer. Your skepticism does not take away my freedom. Personal doubt is one thing. Pinning yourself against us (criticism and skepticism) is another, it very literally counters the principle of peace.

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

Antagonists on this comments board are saying that the LDS church and it's members are somehow being unfair by wanting to "define themselves" but they are missing the point.

If what we (Latter-day Saint members) are saying about ourselves is false, then, yes, we deserve criticism.

However....

if what we are doing is merely trying to present truth, ie, "the way things REALLY are", then we deserve no criticism at all. None. And neither would you if you were in the same situation.

All we are trying to do is to present things as they really are: that is, we believe in Jesus Christ and we try as best as we can to be a moral and upstanding people and, last, we generally succeed at that.

If you refuse to see what is blatantly obvious, whine about sour grapes to your hearts content....

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Kami: Have you ever seen the film "A Birth of A Nation"? That's a film in which people outside a group define the other group. By your own standard, the film accurately portrayed blacks in America.

The burden of proof in logic always rests with the accuser. This is the most logical sound system. This is the very reason why our constitution maintains that we are innocent until proven guilty.

Statements about another person hold no ground unless proven. I am NOT required to state my beliefs, defend them, argue them, even speak them aloud to ANYONE in this free country. I am not REQUIRED to do anything. If you make a claim against us, it stands to reason that YOU be the one to provide some sort of rational explanation as for why. Until that happens, my beliefs are mine and they can only be explained BY ME.

Everyone: The anti-LDS comments on here preach only judgement and contention. Heaven forbid we preach diplomacy and peace!

So many of these comments are nothing but a constant pushing and provoking. To seek out and WANT to fight with other human beings about what they believe... how truly sad!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments