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

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 8 2011 4:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bountiful, Utah

Freedom-In-Danger | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 9, 2011
"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."

I understand the martyr complex, believe me, I see it all the time on the boards. But as far as I know no one on the boards is talking about accusations. It is a matter of opinions, "This is how I see you". Ones self-image is rarely in line with how others perceive you. If you aren't happy with how others perceive you, then first take a good look in the mirror and see if they may be right. If they aren't right, then it is YOU that needs to make the change to help correct their perceptions.

LDS Revelations
Sandy, UT

"In other news Congress claims the right to set it's own approval ratings."

I understand why the LDS Church wants to control what's being said about it. Like any other muti-nationals, the SLC Church has it's own PR interests. It wants to be seen in the best possible light. Fine. No one else is obliged to adopt this prime directive, however. For me free speech is the rule and truth the goal.

Certainly the LDS Church has every right to define itself as it wishes and it has spent huge amounts of money doing that. But there's no guarantee people will buy what the Church is selling and for good reason. History has shown that organizations including the LDS Church are biased and sometimes dishonest in representing themselves. Turns out, the milk before meat approach often leads to omitting key facts.

In the end I think Elder Hugh B Brown said it best:
"We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression"

Salt Lake City, UT

I'm a Mormon.

Lehi, UT

Is as simple as this... if a journalist wanted to do a story about you, would you want them to talk to YOU about who you are or get the information from your enemies or people who know very little about you.

Salt Lake City, UT

I'm a Christian.

Brigham City, UT

To those who say the church changes all the time, read the Bible and see the changes between the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament only one family and one nation had the truth; in the New Testament, it is opened to all who will live by faith (and faith comes by hearing the word of God: Romans 10:17) Today the church doesn't change much; it is society that is changing so rapidly due to technology and innovation------- poor nations are becoming rich and rich nations are becoming poor-- right before our very eyes. Poor people accept the truth, rich people struggle with the truth. It has always been that way.

Laie, HI

It is very difficult for pastors to let the Mormons define themselves....when the pastor does not define the mormons for his flock he looses a portion of his income.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

(The year is 1960) Everyone.. can marry anyone they wish... as long as the person is of the same race. The law treats everyone equally, No race has more rights than another....oh, the same applies to using your own raceâs drinking fountains.

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?

Thereâs nothing objectively wrong with polygamy between consenting adults. We did it! Regarding relatives marrying, other than the ick factor, whatâs objectively wrong is no kids are produced? Even if kids are produced, how is this objectively different than allowing people with Sickle Cell, Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, dwarfism, or any other genetic disease to marry and have kids? Should those be banned from marrying too?

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

Have you ever heard of Baker v Nelson? it is in fact the SCOTUS case that is precedent in sane sex marriage law and was decided by the same court that decided Loving v Virgina. It says that same sex marriage IS NOT covered by the constitution and that states DO have the right to deny same sex couples the right to marriage. When everything goes through the courts it will have to be held up against that decision before the SCOTUS. As the SCOTUS has said that same sex marriage is not covered by the Constitution ultimately THEY must either overturn Baker v Nelson before the claim can be fully made that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

skeptic brings up a point that basically says the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints changed its DOCTRINE in polgamy, priesthood and temple ordinances. What he fails to understand is that each of these which we have argued before were not DOCTRINE but practices. Practices do change but doctrine does not. The Doctrine of polgamy is still in force as many know by temple ordinances. The priesthood was extended to all worthy male members of the LDS Church which opened the priesthood to blacks. Temple ordinances have changed in some regard with certain aspects REMOVED from the ordinance itsel.

The doctrine of the ordinances, of the priesthood and polgamy have not changed. We do not practice polgamy at this time and such it is sinful to do so until it is reinstituted by the Lord to do so. That will not happen as long as the law of the land doesn't allow it but may very well happen after the millienium begins.

So basically the basic doctrines of the LDS Church has not changed since the were implemented by Joseph Smith. As for the Honor Code, that is a practice that can change and does change.

Papillion, NE

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but it seems that the only thing they are trying to say here is to talk to a Mormon if you want to know what they believe. You don't go to a Ford dealer to ask questions about a Chevy. Sadly the media does this with many groups, and individuals. They misrepresent all the time. If you want to know about a group or individuals beliefs and ideas then go to the source.

Farmington, UT

@ alt134

"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.'


So it's ok to "assign blame" to those whose views are different than yours, especially if they worked harder on the issue than you. What a crock!! It's really more an agenda the press embraces, to tell the truth, my friend.

How many "illegal immigrants" are allowed to vote in California on an issue---what is "their proportion of the population?"

Why are you discounting the actual votes that were cast? Don't they really count or is it because your point-of-view failed? (Al Gore would love to use your logic.)

And lastly, why is this issue being raised again ad infinitum when it has nothing to do with the article?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Define us by who we are and by our central beliefs rather than who we are not or by obscure or irrelevant beliefs,"

My beliefs in Kolob or Adam-ondi-Ahman are obscure and donât affect my daily life. If I want to tell people about me, I wonât bring these up because they donât convey who I really am. I will focus on Christ, being moral, charitable, etc.... When journalists and detractors focus on the obscure, it is usually to spread heat rather than light. Focusing on the obscure is like the blind man holding the elephantâs trunk and telling everyone how his description is accurate and unbiased.

The Caravan Moves On
Pagan, there will soon come a day when you will see that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encouraging it's members to work with all their might, as well as their money, to support Proposition 8 was indeed the most Christ-like thing to do.

1 Cor. 10:29 says just the opposite.

Courts invalidating any votes based on conservative interpretation of the constitution is NOT democratic.
Without courts guarding our rights, democracy is simply organized mob rule.

Temple City, CA

Am I misunderstanding this thread, or are there a lot of people arguing against allowing Mormons to define themselves? Is it true that some of the arguments against our defining ourselves include the idea that we are all liars, so we can't be trusted to define ourselves? Since when did our support of Prop. 8 cause us to lose the right to speak for ourselves? And why would someone who has renounced the Church and its faithful members have the right to define us?

Fred Vader
Oklahoma City, OK

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

Actually, no, the 9th Circut has not validated Judge Walker's ruling. I believe the matter is still before the 3 judge panel, unless I missed something and gays all over California failed to celebrate this "validation."

And, as someone else posted, the US Supreme Court has already ruled in Baker v. Nelson that same sex marriage is not a 14th amendment issue. It is interesting that Judge Walker ignored that ruling all together. But I doubt the 9th circuit will ignore it.


The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is NONE else. Duet 4:35 // Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Ex 20:3,5 // I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. Isaiah 44:8 // I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. Isaiah 45:5,6 // I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me. Isaiah 46:9 // But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. 1 Cor 8:6 //
If you think are going to become a god some day - you are saying God is a liar.

Salt Lake City, UT

'(Pagan) Actually, no, the 9th Circut has not validated Judge Walker's ruling. I believe the matter is still before the 3 judge panel...' - Fred Vader | 1:54 p.m. Dec. 9, 2011

You are correct.

I apologize.

Judge Walkers ruling WAS upheld by a federal judge and NOT the 9th circut.

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

'...Chief U.S. District Judge (sic) said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry his same-sex partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

"The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," Ware wrote.' - Article

So, judge Walkers ruling struck down Prop 8 and NOW is before the 9th circut, as far as I am aware.

After that, I believe it is the Supreme Court.

Feel free to double check me.

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

Lets change a couple of facts and see if you still think the judge should have been allowed to sit on the case.
Fact one lets change same sex marriage to racial discrimination.
Fact two lets change judge Walker from being gay to being a member of the KKK.
Now should a KKK member be permitted to sit on a case about racial discrimination? I say NO because his mind is made up before he ever enters the court room. So what is the difference of a gay judge over a same sex marriage case? His mind is made up before he enters the court room. It does not matter what the existing statutes say, this is why Walker did not address Baker v Nelson the case that set the precedent for same sex marriage in the US.

Salt Lake City, UT

And, as someone else posted, the US Supreme Court has already ruled in Baker v. Nelson that same sex marriage is not a 14th amendment issue. It is interesting that Judge Walker ignored that ruling all together. But I doubt the 9th circuit will ignore it.

The Baker decision is from 1972, just a few years after the Loving decision allowing mixed race marriages. It even pre-dates the ERA effort. America has come a long way in the past 40 years regarding the recognition of human rights.

Judge Walker's ruling will allow the current Court to revisit the issue and review the logic the original court used in its ruling. The Court has to have a case brought to it. it can't, on its own, decide to revisit past decisions.



We don't call God a liar. We worship Him. We follow His commandments. We preach His restored Gospel.

We've only restored this-

Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image"

Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."

Psalm 82:6 "Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Acts 17:29 "we are the offspring of God"

John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one"

Romans 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Philip 3:21 "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body"

to comment

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