Reader comments
Demos find LDS silent on issues
181 comments | Read story
lvman | 2:20 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Are these people idiots? We need a special law so that a gay person can inherit
property? And all this time I thought you could leave whatever you wanted to
whomever you wanted in your will or trust. I didn't know bequests to gay
people were invalid. That's a shocker to me. And while they are at it,
make sure that I, my family and all my friends can be added to Seeling's
insurance policy also since we all want insurance too. Heck, why stop there,
just include the entire State of Utah onto Seelig's policy. But I guess
that would be the same thing as a single payer system which we all know would be
the end of civilization as we know it because the insurance companies have told
us so.
donnieboy48 | 3:09 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I have posted on this article 4 times and nothing showes up..maybe I am banned
from giving an honest opinion...
Comments continue below
Where are the details? | 4:26 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I would like to know what specifically was discussed about immigration,
considering the church typically uses its influence to derail any bills which
would crack down on illegal aliens.
Shrug | 4:47 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You can make many laws but you can't change their attitude. It'll
take an entire generation to change, just like racism issues.
DennyG | 5:25 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The Church should stay silent on issues.
Tim | 5:39 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Listen to the Gov or stay in the stone ages and wonder why outsiders won't
vote for Mormons!
Utah Resident | 6:08 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Why is our Legislature 80 percent LDS, when actual members (active or in name
only) make up barely 60 percent?
joe shmo | 6:15 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
they aren't watched by lds leaders, they are monitored by lds leaders who
tell their brethern how to vote...lets face it. the church runs the state..you
can't fool me...
B. Young | 6:38 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
If you don't like it, just move to Calibfornia.
Anything goes there and the taxes to pay for that liberal mess show it.
Anything goes there and the taxes to pay for that liberal mess show it.
re: joe shmo | 6:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
can you hear my tiny violin playing for you! Whine, Whine, Whine!!!!
Wondering | 6:46 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
just wondering whatever happened to seperation of church and state. I know it is
a strange concept around here but it sure would be nice to see it happen. I
don't want or need anyone's church telling me what I can and cannot
do, if I did I would go to church for myself
Danny C. | 6:54 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The Church should not stay silent on issues, but government leaders and
representatives should remember it wasn't the Church that voted them in.
Kevin | 6:53 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Why are homosexuals trying to get the LDS church to make a statement of support
of their legislation? We should want to them, as an organization, to neither
support nor oppose. Church organizations don't pay taxes, and should stay
out of politics until they do. They are not prohibited by law from doing so,
but they should be prohibited unless they pay the user fee we all pay.
papagoose | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The church does not run the state. People simply vote their conscience. Normally
your upbringing and personal convictions dictate how you are going to react to
any given issue or situation. My concern is... many of the people who moved to
Utah for the "Quality of Life" arrive, then want to change our laws to
match the ones they had where they are from... "Think McFly!" if we do
that then we are going to be in the same boat their former places of residence
are in, with higher crime, etc.
Property rights | 6:58 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I don't understand how the state can tell us to whom we must rent our OWN
PROPERTY! If I prefer not to rent my property to gays, blacks, latinos, college
students, the elderly, families with young children, Mormons, or any other group
it's MY business. We don't need government forcing us to rent to
certain groups. That goes for my who I hire as well.
George | 7:02 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Dear joe shmo,
Why do you chose to live here?
Why do you chose to read this paper?
Why do you chose to live here?
Why do you chose to read this paper?
To: DennyG | 7:04 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
What do you have to base your comment on? "The Church should stay silent on
issues."
Certainly it can't be the First Amendment?
It IS Freedom OF Religion. NOT Freedom FROM Relegion.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of speech is not limited to anyone. Even you DennyG.
Certainly it can't be the First Amendment?
It IS Freedom OF Religion. NOT Freedom FROM Relegion.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Freedom of speech is not limited to anyone. Even you DennyG.
Abraham Tschetter | 7:05 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
When it comes to input into political affairs, the church should always be
silent.
30 second memory | 7:09 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
When the LDS church was fighting gay marriage in California, there was a lip
service to the idea that the LDS church does not hate gay people nor want to
discriminate against them. I agree that a non-tax paying organization should not
have any political access, but since the LDS church does things like prevent two
gay people from marriage (but not living together...what message does that
send?) and historically has done things like fight the Equal Rights Ammemdment
for women, maybe the LDS church can undo some of the damage it has done by
supporting these bills. However, I seriously doubt it will happen. My wife and I
did not pay tithing this year because I hate to think a portion of my money is
going to this increasingly homophobic organization. I now know what church
members felt like in the mid '70s when the LDS church was not allowing
blacks to hold the priesthood. Is the LDS church going to be on the wrong side
of every important human rights movement, or make a different choice?
Dave S. | 7:11 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You guys of similar thought should show your contempt for the church by leaving
the state as fast as you can, I wouldn't take it if I were you!! Try
Maine?!
SlowS | 7:14 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The fact that lawmakers meet with LDS leaders to get a sense of their current
standing by ITSELF shows that the LDS Church is wielding influence.
observer | 7:16 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
This article is interesting and certainly raises awarenesses on some interesting
points... church / state, gay partnership issues, liquor, etc... and an
understanding of and a clarity in these issues is valuable and important. What
stumps me are the people expressing opinions that reflect their ignorance
regarding the LDS church and its political influence over its membership (or
lack thereof). I am an attending church member and have NEVER once been told,
recommended, commissioned or otherwise coerced to vote for anything but my
conscience. Furthermore, both prior to and since the election I have seen
fellow members exercise great control in refraining from expressing their
political views, opinions, satisfactions and / or disappointments in the latest
political season. This has impressed me.
Those who think that the church, or its agents, consciously guide the membership to vote a certain way on merely political matters are greatly in error. Moral issues, such as the strict definition of "marriage," are another matter completely.
Those who think that the church, or its agents, consciously guide the membership to vote a certain way on merely political matters are greatly in error. Moral issues, such as the strict definition of "marriage," are another matter completely.
taxpayer 21 | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
to Kevin /6:53 a.m.
Thank you very much for your wisdom. By your standard those who don't pay taxes should stay out of politics. That would certainly help those who do pay the taxes to have better control of the terrible waste in government.
Where oh, where did this notion that just at the very moment a person is elected he/she is magically changed to be superior in intellect and wisdom than the rest of us?
Thank you very much for your wisdom. By your standard those who don't pay taxes should stay out of politics. That would certainly help those who do pay the taxes to have better control of the terrible waste in government.
Where oh, where did this notion that just at the very moment a person is elected he/she is magically changed to be superior in intellect and wisdom than the rest of us?
Re: Wondering | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I don't think that you understand the seperation of church and state. A
persons personal and religous views should not be seperated from their political
views. If you lived in Boston the laws would be influenced by the catholic
churc, Minneapolis the Lutheran Church, Texas the Southern Baptist etc. The LDS
have just as much responsibility as any other group to vote and state their
values. The LDS church is not endorseing any parties only taking stands on
issues.
Mark | 7:24 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Kevin 6:53 a.m.:
You are actually arguing that we pay for rights? We may actually believe that if we were slave owners or bigots.
If we followed your line of thinking, Abolition and the civil rights movement would have never seen the light of day. Churches have always played a vital role in bringing moral issues to the American political system. Silencing American churches would be a great loss to us all.
You are actually arguing that we pay for rights? We may actually believe that if we were slave owners or bigots.
If we followed your line of thinking, Abolition and the civil rights movement would have never seen the light of day. Churches have always played a vital role in bringing moral issues to the American political system. Silencing American churches would be a great loss to us all.
Anonymous | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
"it would be great if I could get them on my health insurance"
-Selig
...No it wouldn't. You already get too much as it is. I pay for your health insurance and don't feel it necessary that I should also pay for all your extended familie's insurance as well.
Typical democrat...thinking that things are owed to people on my dime.
Another stupid comment of her is that the people of utah don't need to rely on the government or churches, but rather the people of utah. Good luck with that one. Im not LDS but If the people of utah or the federal government can come up with half as good as a welfare program as the LDS, this world would be a better place.
Once again, typical democrat thinking that with money and more government all of our problems can be solved
...No it wouldn't. You already get too much as it is. I pay for your health insurance and don't feel it necessary that I should also pay for all your extended familie's insurance as well.
Typical democrat...thinking that things are owed to people on my dime.
Another stupid comment of her is that the people of utah don't need to rely on the government or churches, but rather the people of utah. Good luck with that one. Im not LDS but If the people of utah or the federal government can come up with half as good as a welfare program as the LDS, this world would be a better place.
Once again, typical democrat thinking that with money and more government all of our problems can be solved
Big Daddy Ute | 7:30 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You wonder for a moment why those of us who were born in Utah, but are not
Mormon, get so upset with this stuff. When is the meeting with the Bishop of
the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake? When is the meeting with the other religious
leaders of Utah? Why not make decisions in our legislature that benefit all
Utahn's and not just those of the predominant religion? I was born here,
pay taxes here, and have as much say as the leaders of any church.
uncannygunman | 7:29 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Stupid question, but wouldn't it just be a lot simpler to allow gays to
marry who they want to? The benefits being discussed in piece-meal legislation
are just the benefits of marriage, why not make it an easy package deal like it
is for straight people?
I also find it ironic that gay marriage gets opposed in the name of "preserving the traditional family," but that opposition is leading to discussion of extending substantial marriage benefits to relationships far outside the intimate relationship of a marriage (whether it be gay or straight). I'm a lot more comfortable with gay marriage than I am with sibling/niece/nephew/elderly parent marriage! Ewww!
Be careful what you wish for I guess.
I also find it ironic that gay marriage gets opposed in the name of "preserving the traditional family," but that opposition is leading to discussion of extending substantial marriage benefits to relationships far outside the intimate relationship of a marriage (whether it be gay or straight). I'm a lot more comfortable with gay marriage than I am with sibling/niece/nephew/elderly parent marriage! Ewww!
Be careful what you wish for I guess.
Re: Utah resident | 7:38 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You may be right that 40% may not be mormon.
I'm not arguing or advocating any side, but the truth is that the majority of those who are affluent and educated in Utah are mormons or have strong ties to the mormon church.
Typically, with money and education comes people who get elected into office. So, to me it is no surprise that 80% are mormon. It's funny that you would even question that.
I'm not arguing or advocating any side, but the truth is that the majority of those who are affluent and educated in Utah are mormons or have strong ties to the mormon church.
Typically, with money and education comes people who get elected into office. So, to me it is no surprise that 80% are mormon. It's funny that you would even question that.
Debbie | 7:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I find it funny that so many people seem to be up in arms because these
legislators met with some LDS leaders. It is a courtesy and an opportunity for
both to create a dialog. The legislators are aware that a majority of their
constiuents are of that religious affiliation. I live in Georgia and our
legislators meet with Baptist and Catholic leaders and I don't have a hissy
fit!! Legislators meet with lots of groups: buisness leaders, neighborhood
leaders, ethnic leaders and I bet they even meet with other religious leaders
such as the Catholic diocese it just doesn't make the news. I have served
in our local government and I welcomed the opportunity to talk to any group and
hear their concerns and voice my opinions. I believe many presidents have met
with popes over the years and I don't hear you squawking about that. Hum,
is it maybe because it's the LDS church that gets your hackles up!?
Hopeless | 7:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The Church controls Utah, you all have to know that by now. It controls the
lives of everyone living in Utah. Its main purpose is to control your family.
The state representatives are puppets of the Church. What you have to ask
yourself is, am I ok living here and can I put aside my prejudice I have toward
the Church. That is what we as non members need to do to survive and to keep
our families together, especially for those who are married to a member of the
LDS church. We can only hope the the members of the Church that also represent
us for our state government can put aside the burden of being a mormon and keep
Church and State on different paths.
Read the Constitution Please! | 7:40 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The "Separation Clause" is actually for the Federal Government and
doesn't apply to local governments. A state has their own rights (at
least, that was the original intent). The intent was if you didn't like
the local government, you could vote with your feet.
The aforementioned "separation" clause is actually in the Bill of Rights (Amendment 1):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The intent was that the federal government was not to establish a sponsored religion for the union. But, it also says immediately after that they shouldn't abridge the freedom of speech. You have to view the LDS Church as an interest group with the same right to speech and to petition the government as say the Unions or even...the GLBT groups do. Yes, the Church has the same rights as the GLBT to influence leaders and to push for (or against) legislation to be passed.
The aforementioned "separation" clause is actually in the Bill of Rights (Amendment 1):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The intent was that the federal government was not to establish a sponsored religion for the union. But, it also says immediately after that they shouldn't abridge the freedom of speech. You have to view the LDS Church as an interest group with the same right to speech and to petition the government as say the Unions or even...the GLBT groups do. Yes, the Church has the same rights as the GLBT to influence leaders and to push for (or against) legislation to be passed.
??? | 7:47 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
To 30 Sec Memory:
Shows how much you know since the church only used $1,200 dollars and that was for air fare and other travelling costs for general authorities travelling to California.
Also, the church has never been against civil rights. They have opposed certain bills where they didn't like the language that was used in writing them, like prop 8 and the women's rights bills. The church has come out and said they would support issues if they had be written differently.
Trust me, the church just doesn't come out and say things. They do their HW and meet with their lawyers before making a stance on civic/legal issues.
Shows how much you know since the church only used $1,200 dollars and that was for air fare and other travelling costs for general authorities travelling to California.
Also, the church has never been against civil rights. They have opposed certain bills where they didn't like the language that was used in writing them, like prop 8 and the women's rights bills. The church has come out and said they would support issues if they had be written differently.
Trust me, the church just doesn't come out and say things. They do their HW and meet with their lawyers before making a stance on civic/legal issues.
zippo | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The influence you all worry about. Hmmmmmm----How about the south with the
Southern Baptists or the areas of NY or other states where the Catholics or
Jews have strong influence. How about where the Quakers live. They must have
some influence in the area they live. Golly gee boys and girls influence is in
all parts of this nation. We have many enviormentalists living outside this
state that try to influence what Utah does. Influence is influence. Get used
to it no matter where you live.
Kevin | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
@Mark | 7:24 a.m.
As someone descended from abolitionist Quakers, you're point is taken.
But I'm standing by my view that all organizations that get directly involved in the shaping of our laws and constitutions should pay taxes. It's only fair. That's all 501(c)(3) organizations that lobby. That's all lobbyist organizations. We're always complaining about how D.C. is beholden to lobbyists. Well, they should pay taxes. Their tax break is our tax burden.
As for non-profits like churches, they are also affecting our markets by not having to pay property taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong. They can buy up as much land as they can afford and not pay taxes on it.
As someone descended from abolitionist Quakers, you're point is taken.
But I'm standing by my view that all organizations that get directly involved in the shaping of our laws and constitutions should pay taxes. It's only fair. That's all 501(c)(3) organizations that lobby. That's all lobbyist organizations. We're always complaining about how D.C. is beholden to lobbyists. Well, they should pay taxes. Their tax break is our tax burden.
As for non-profits like churches, they are also affecting our markets by not having to pay property taxes. Correct me if I'm wrong. They can buy up as much land as they can afford and not pay taxes on it.
voter meeting? | 7:55 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
I'm born and raised in Utah. Now I'm 46 years old. I've been
active all my life. It's mind boggling to think of how many church meetings
I've attended. I have not yet once, attended a meeting where they told me
how to vote. If you believe the church tells the 'brethren' how to
vote, I worry for you.
Anonymous | 7:52 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Gays have every right that every other citizen in the state of Utah has...they
can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. And if I were
the LDS leaders, I would give the gays no quarter. I would tell them to get out,
and quit persecuting those who opposed Prop 8, that this is a free country, and
people should be able to vote their conscience with out fear of intimidation
from goons like the gays.
Whine Not | 8:08 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
After reading the 33 posts available (at the time I read them) I have to say
that BigDaddyUte makes the most sense. There is no reason why legislative
committees shouldn't be meeting with representatives of other groups and
religions in Utah. But, if those groups and religions have not formed a
committee to take concerns to Utah's capitol hill, then I think it's
high time to stop complaining about the LDS Church's influence and control,
and get yourselves organized and voiced. Equalize the playing field. Stop
whining and get organized. You can't have it both ways--complain about all
the control of the Mormon Church, and then not get organized to create a real
balance of opinion. So, complainers, do something more than complain. Get
organized and get your voice represented on capitol hill.
Re: Hopeless 7:42 | 8:10 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
No, the Church and its members do not want to control your family. For all they
care you can marry a pine tree or adopt your pet poodle. Fine, if you keep all
of this private stuff, well, private.
The problem comes when you want legal and social recognition for your relationships. You want tax benefits and social recognition. You want society to protect your "relationahips." Then it becomes other citizens' business, and they just might evaluate the rationale of your decisions and the benefit of your relationships to society from the perspective of their own worldview.
The problem comes when you want legal and social recognition for your relationships. You want tax benefits and social recognition. You want society to protect your "relationahips." Then it becomes other citizens' business, and they just might evaluate the rationale of your decisions and the benefit of your relationships to society from the perspective of their own worldview.
To Hopeless | 8:11 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
You're hopelessly wrong! The Church's main purpose is not to control
anybody, but to teach people how,through the atonement of Jesus Christ to free
themselves, or keep themselves from ever getting entangled and
"controlled" by the evils of the world. To bring joy into lives by
creating a clean and wholesome atmosphere. Being a member of the church
isn't a "burden". It's a blessing. Without it, Utah would be
in the same shape as California, Nevada and other states that run on pleasing
only the instincts, greed, lusts and immoral habits of man.
Utah and Utahns are not perfect. But at least there is a moral framework that can protect them if citizens of Utah (religious affiliation aside) will let it. So many folks out there( I don't live there anymore) seem bound and determined to destroy everything that makes Utah great by cracking that framework and acting like spoiled stubborn children throwing a tantrum when they don't get more and more of what isn't good for them.
Kudos to a state that attempts to protect people from themselves.
Utah and Utahns are not perfect. But at least there is a moral framework that can protect them if citizens of Utah (religious affiliation aside) will let it. So many folks out there( I don't live there anymore) seem bound and determined to destroy everything that makes Utah great by cracking that framework and acting like spoiled stubborn children throwing a tantrum when they don't get more and more of what isn't good for them.
Kudos to a state that attempts to protect people from themselves.
Funny | 8:18 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
how you people are so paranoid about the church. Certainly, when you elected to
live/stay in Utah you realized you were in a state founded by and made up
largely of Mormons. I'm not suggesting you leave like some other naive
commenters, I'm just saying is it really that much of a surprize to you
that the church has influence on Utah?
Since over half of Utahn's are LDS they're just not supposed to have or voice their opinion huh? How ironic, Utah exists because of a group of people who weren't allowed elsewhere to have an opionion went to a barren wasteland where they could finally have a say in their government and now you want them to shut up in Utah too!
Since over half of Utahn's are LDS they're just not supposed to have or voice their opinion huh? How ironic, Utah exists because of a group of people who weren't allowed elsewhere to have an opionion went to a barren wasteland where they could finally have a say in their government and now you want them to shut up in Utah too!
Instereo | 8:17 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
We all know the LDS church is the power behind the throne. Since the throne is
republican in our state, I don't see why democrats would be surprised the
church didn't tell them anything. The marching orders are going to go to
the republicans in a similar meeting but the disucssions in the meeting
won't be reported in the newspaper.
Immigration, please! | 8:20 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
So, I'm reading an article in a church-owned paper about lobbying efforts
by the church and the only info you give me about immigration is that it was one
of the three topics discussed.
What is going on here?
No wonder Godby went over to the dark side!
What is going on here?
No wonder Godby went over to the dark side!
Yeah, the Church | 8:24 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
. . . does wield some influence in this state. Does hearing someone say that
make you haters happy?
Why wouldn't the Church wield influence in a state inhabited primarily by its members? But, it's influence -- the Church itself does not have a single vote.
And, it should be noted that the Church uses an amazing amount of restraint in wielding its influence. Remember that the Democrat leadership walked out of the meeting with no clear guidance as to what the Church wants.
The bile exhibited never ceases to amaze. The haters' message is that we should listen to them, not Church leaders. And their fury stems from the fact we refuse to do so.
It's called freedom. Get over it.
Why wouldn't the Church wield influence in a state inhabited primarily by its members? But, it's influence -- the Church itself does not have a single vote.
And, it should be noted that the Church uses an amazing amount of restraint in wielding its influence. Remember that the Democrat leadership walked out of the meeting with no clear guidance as to what the Church wants.
The bile exhibited never ceases to amaze. The haters' message is that we should listen to them, not Church leaders. And their fury stems from the fact we refuse to do so.
It's called freedom. Get over it.
luke | 8:25 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
look arguing about this is pointless, no one will ever come to an agreement on
this subject. utah is a dominant religious state, yes the church has a strong
hold on things here. i dont know what people are complaining about, let people
who are gay do there thing, it leaves more women for us guys. do you think gay
people like hearing about "straight" peoples marriage. at the same
time things are not going to change here in utah, look if your gay and and you
want to get married, then go somewhere you can because its not going to change
for a while. the LDS religion will NEVER accept gay partnership thats just how
it is.
George | 8:26 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Religions, next to any government, has brought more heartache, more depravity
into this world than anything else. Where were these religions when it came to
slavery (it is going on at this very moment in Sudan), to genocide
(native-Americans)(Zimbabwe), to pedophile, to abortion; all either being a part
of or totally ignoring what is happening.
If the mormon church wants to get involved, why aren't they at every Planned Parenthood outlet that is performing abortions?
As for my religion and my god it is Darwin, "survival of the fittest" everything within it makes sense.
If the mormon church wants to get involved, why aren't they at every Planned Parenthood outlet that is performing abortions?
As for my religion and my god it is Darwin, "survival of the fittest" everything within it makes sense.
To Read the Constitution: | 8:28 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates key provisions of the Bill of Rights and
applies them to the States. This has been a bedrock of constitutional law for
decades. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Know your constitutional law before
accusing others of ignorance.
David | 8:27 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
re: hopeless
The Church controls Utah, because we, the church, make up the majority, and we, the church, like to listen to a certain group on advice on how things should be. So as long as we, the people, the church, are the majority, then we will continue to choose as we believe. If you don't like it, move to one of the other 49 states where this isn't the case.
The Church controls Utah, because we, the church, make up the majority, and we, the church, like to listen to a certain group on advice on how things should be. So as long as we, the people, the church, are the majority, then we will continue to choose as we believe. If you don't like it, move to one of the other 49 states where this isn't the case.
washcomom | 8:28 a.m. Jan. 8, 2009
Everyone knows where the LDS church stands on morality issues. Liquor sales and
gay "marriage" are moral issues, ones that conflict with the tenents
of the church. Immigration is has its own nuances that weren't even
discussed in this article. It seems to me to be another story to get the church
to bend towards the gay agenda.
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.
- No. 21 Wisconsin beats Michigan 3:26 p.m.
- Hotline doctors field colon questions 3:18 p.m.
- No. 22 BYU holds off pesky Lobos 3:14 p.m.
- MGM says it's looking for buyer 3:01 p.m.
- No. 7 Ga. Tech routs Duke, 49-10 2:54 p.m.
- Sunday TV news shows guests 2:52 p.m.
- Heroine names: Worthy women, icons 2:44 p.m.
- Open letter to son on 16th birthday 2:41 p.m.
- Bamboo not an instant nightmare 2:40 p.m.
- Yardsmart: Delectable winter greens 2:37 p.m.
- Apostle's wife felt comfort in attack
- Short-handed Jazz fly past Sixers
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?
- D-Will home for daughter
- Bench proves fruitful for Y.
- Utes excited for 'dream' game
- Born of water and the spirit
- Man killed during 3rd I-15 crash
- Woods Cross refinery to shut down
- 5A: Bingham rolls to title game
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
352 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights199
- Senators want food tax restored164
- Will state consider gay rights law?146
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?118
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges105
- Celtics crush Jazz104
If you are looking for a bird on the cheap, the following specials from...
How do you handle kids and contests? Our oldest daughter, 7, is of the...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Let's face it, Mitchell will always be singing some song in the courthouse to...
I think its funny that all these ignorant people sit and read the Articles on...
While I will agree we need to do a lot more the share the gospel with our...
Oh wait that's a 0-9 team. Air Force and Utah are next. Bronco: "Two...
@MormonDem Right. You were in the room and that's what was said? Or are...
Calm down! utah state, weber, westiminister, and slcc are barely mentioned...
Owning a dog is not a right. It is a privilege. Some dog owners own up to...
3:04 not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. No...
And this story got posted on the DNews, why?
Face a kicker and you lose. What a pathetic performance by byU against the...
Advertisements
This could cause major legal battles challenging such a law as unconstitutional, delaying recovery for the departed's family.