Quantcast
Faith

Is prejudice against Mormons acceptable?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Vanka Provo, UT
    June 4, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    Stay the Course,

    Thank you for the sentiment.

    I stopped commenting because it makes no difference.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    June 4, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    Stay the Course,

    I appreciate the sentiment.

    I post very little anymore because it does no good. I have hoped for years to find someone who could address the questions I have about religion, but to no avail. Bishops, Stake Presidents, General Authorities - nothing. Moroni's Challenge has been worthless. Prayer has been a waste. So my wife will continue in her faith alone. My commitment to truth and integrity will not allow me to join a religion in which I do not believe.

    Cest la vie. I just wish LDS would stop condemning me as "unworthy" because I have not received the "answer" they think they have received. I see so many people judged, marginalized, and ostracized in the name of "choosing your friends carefully" and "choose friends who share your values", and it is bothersome. In my experience, Mormons, more than any other group I have known, suffer from the false belief that "birds of a feather _should_ flock together" and birds of a different feather should be avoided because they are "unworthy".

    IMHO, Church leaders should be more worried about that than about whether or not "prejudice against Mormons is acceptable".

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    June 3, 2012 10:39 p.m.

    To Brahmabull and others:

    "We have had misguided souls in the Church who have,in their ignorance, opposed the advice of the [President of the Church], not sensing the fact that they were opposing the Lord and they have fallen into darkness and sorrow, and unless they repent they will not find a place in the celestial kingdom.

    Let us remember that the President of this Church has been officially designated as the pilot of the Church here in motality to represent the Master of heaven and earth. When men as they have sometimes done in order to win their success along some line or another, have come to and individual or individuals and said, "I have had this dream and this what the Lord wants us to do," you may know that they are not on the Lord's side of the line. The dreams and visions and revelations of God to the children of men have always come through his regularly appointed servant. You may have dreams and manifestations for you own comfort or for your own satisfaction, but you will not have them for the Church...We need not be deceived." Who is deceiving who?

  • Sore loser tampa, fl
    June 3, 2012 3:41 p.m.

    Pres.McKay said nothing external will hinder the Church's progress. However, internal squabbles are a much bigger problem he further taught.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 2, 2012 9:58 p.m.

    Jeff - Interesting assumption, but based on nothing. No I have never said that in any of my posts. You are trying to lump me in with others you may have encountered, but it doesn't work. I just don't like backtracking, hiding truth, and justifications of changed doctrine. Is the picture clear now?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 2, 2012 6:22 p.m.

    Brahamabull: It's interesting how you berate Bill for "namecalling," then denigrate Bill's beliefs as "fairy tales." Please, follow your own suggestions.

    By the way, is it that Mormons engaged in civil disobedience that you object to, that some Mormons understand the articles of faith differently from you, that many Mormons vote differently from you, or what? If the Church says to obey the law of the land, and the law of the land permits civil disobedience, then what is wrong with the Church's civil disobedience.

    Oh, no, wait, I get it. You're just angry that the Church supported Prop 8, and you want to use the shotgun approach to criticism, and find fault with the Church no matter what it does. That seems to be the approach of so many people that want to vent their prejudice on the Church. "We hate the Mormons," they say, "because the Mormons in California voted against Prop 8. We know that the number of Mormons there cannot possibly total the number of votes that passed the Proposition, but, if we can fan the fires of internicene hatred, we can divide the coalition that won and have a better chance next time."

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 2, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    @sharrona

    "But against the 10 commandments: The Fifth Commandment,Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother."

    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

    Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated ,which indeed the firstborn:

    But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his

    Duet 21:15-17

    Not only did Moses recognize polygamy but he also made laws regulating its practice.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 2, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska - I love how you continue to call people hateful names, and all in defense of something you know to be fact. You continue to make excuses for the church breaking the law in one breath and in the other stating that they obey the law. Civil disobedience and breaking the law are one in the same - you and I both know that, but I am the only one to admit it. Until you stop making excuses you will continue to be in darkness. You berate everybody who doesn't believe in fairytales, and do it all in the name of god. I am sure that is what he would want you to do.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    June 2, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    Prejudice against Mormonism will always be around. It is part of what is supposed to be, as being a disciple of Jesus Christ. This is a destiny, just as it was during the early Christian era, before the great Apostasty, up until 325 AD. What more can we expect?

  • Jennifer in San Diego SAN DIEGO, CA
    June 1, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    I think every group believes they are victims of bigotry and prejudice. Born-again Christians feel like everyone wants them to shut up, Muslims complain that they are threatened, Jews complain that Antisemitism is rampant, atheists feel put upon by the religious majority...It's par for the course for people to think they have it tougher than others. Academics might think Mormons are stupid or ignorant, but are Mormons barred from entering certain colleges? Are they denied jobs because of their faith? Are they denied the right to marry? Raise children? Move from one neighborhood to another? In all my years as a Mormon I never came across outright bigotry -- ignorance, sure. Prejudice, sure. But what are we supposed to do, cry over thought crimes? Whine because there are people out there who think the church and its members are morons? There are much bigger problems to deal with than this.

  • Stay the Course Salt Lake City, utah
    June 1, 2012 5:20 p.m.

    Vanka still good to see you are reading the comments
    We couldn't disagree more on several issues but I still like reading your comments just wondered why you seemed to suddenly quit posting

  • snowman Provo, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    sharrona: What you said about what Mormons believe is right except this(Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers)

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Stay the Course

    You missed me?

    Why?

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    June 1, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    Mormonism officially and openly aspires to rule the world. It officially and socially discriminates against those who do not believe their stories.

    I oppose totalitarian ideologies in all their forms, including Mormonism.

    That is not an unhealthy prejudice.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 1, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    Wow. The moderators let those who agree with the article say anything they want, then cancel comments by those who don't.

    atl134 - Bill in Nebraska has a bad habit of mixing up facts on purpose, and confusing the truth to try to make his viewpoint look better. Most people know that polygamy was illegal when it was practiced in Illinois - this is evident by the writings of the members of that time.

    As stated in the times and seasons.
    "The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have more than one wife alive at once." Times and seasons volume 5.

    Bill in Nebraska is going against what was printed at the time in the mormon owned newspaper/periodical???

    Most people know that the articles of faith state that they should obey the laws of the land, yet didn't do so with polygamy. Also, after Wilford Woodruff stopped polygamy, many mormons still did it in secret, breaking the laws of the land. Why was it in the articles of faith if they didn't intend to keep the laws of the land.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 1, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    To: Bill in Nebraska: Christians are not Prejudice toward Mormonism they disagree theologically. Polygamy is not the only area that of disagreement:
    Mormon view: Mormonism declares there are 3 Gods in the godhead. God was once a man like us before he became a God. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.
    Christian view(Catholic protestant): God has always been God, There is only one God(Triune). God does not change. God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones.

    Mormon view; Jesus is our elder brother. Lucifer is the brother of Jesus. Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of the Father. Christ gained exaltation (became a God),All men were born sons of God in the spirit. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

    Christian view(Catholic, protestant): Jesus created angels including Lucifer. Jesus has always been God, Jesus was a miraculous conception; a virgin gave birth by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Jesus of Mormonism was born at Jerusalem. The Jesus of the Bible was born in Bethlehem

    Christian view: Holy Ghost/Spirit same Greek word(pneuma

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    June 1, 2012 4:33 a.m.

    "Swedish reader" says "Prejudice is more like... 'You must have negative qualities X, Y and Z because you belong to a particular group, since all members of that group are that way.'" No, that is not exactly true for groups to which people CHOOSE to belong. We shouldn't generalize about people because of factors like race, but, for instance, we can make some negative generalizations about people based on their choice to be Nazis.

    We can also make some generalizations about people who choose to be members of a particular faith, especially those who positively affirm support of that faith. If we disagree with the tenets of that faith, we can say the supporters have qualities that we consider negative, especially if membership in the group requires believing in those tenets. So whereas "Mormons shouldn't be allowed to run for office" is in conflict with our American ideals, "I would never vote for a Mormon" can be a considered decision based on an evaluation of facts that necessarily do apply, and that is not what we mean by "prejudice."

  • Stay the Course Salt Lake City, utah
    May 31, 2012 10:19 p.m.

    Hey just wondering anyone seen or hear from Vanka lately?
    Where did he go????? Hasnt been on the comment board lately

  • chicagoborn Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2012 4:35 p.m.

    @Cats
    Is prejudice against Mormons acceptable? Of course not. Although, prejudice against liberal certainly seems acceptable according to your comment.

  • SLMG Murtoa Australia, Victoria
    May 31, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    Ref: Cats

    Somewhere in Time, UT

    It's sad some people are so bitter and unhappy that they never miss a chance to attack the Church on any article or basis they can find.

    I once attended a presentation for the CLIO awards in Washington, D.C. When the ad the LDS Church had produced (and had won awards) was shown, a large, audible "BOOOO" went throughout the audience. The ad was about "The Good Samaritan." The "boooo" didn't happen until the end of the ad when it stated it was produced by "The Mormons." It was pretty shocking and very sad.

    Most of these "broadminded" liberals are actually some of the most narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet. They're open minded only toward those they agree with.

    This post made a lot of sense until the last Paragraph, then you let your own prejudice show. I personally have never known many "broadminded" conservatives but plenty of narrow-minded, mean-spirited ones. These descriptive words fit many people on both sides of the fence, so lets not paint anyone with a broad brush.

  • Butch70 Spokane, WA
    May 31, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    I have among Mormons when I was a kid in a small town Arco, Id. where most of the kids were Mormon and I got along with them. I believe in religian just do not try to shove it down my throat. Enough said.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    actually prejudice against any conservative God believing patriotic group is acceptable in America today. However prejudice against communist's and their close relatives (Marxism Socialism Atheism) is not acceptable. At least these are the main stream media standards.

  • Swedish reader Stockholm, Sweden
    May 31, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    HotGlobe hits the nail on the head. Valid disagreement is not prejudice, because it's simply "I disagree with you on this particular issue". Prejudice is more like "You're a bad person/ignorant/stupid/malevolent because you have a different opinion than I", or "You must have negative qualities X, Y and Z because you belong to a particular group, since all members of that group are that way". Being LDS in a country where people often have prejudice against religion, I make it a habit to show people who I am before I talk about it. If you lead with "I belong to this particular group", people who have prejudice will only see that prejudice. If you lead with showing who you are, they realize their prejudice was wrong. Every individual deserves to be judged on his or her own merits, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That also entails expressing it without being disrespectful to others. And voting where an issue is put to the vote.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 31, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    A number of years ago when I first became a member of the LDS Church this topic came up in an Elders Quorum meeting and my response at the time was - if you are going to be an insular group (in other words where your life revolves around the Church - not necessarily the Gospel)than you bring on the prejudice by your own doing. It is only after we remember to go out into our communities and be the examples to ALL people of what Latter-day Saints are really all about that prejudice will begin to go away. My thoughts have not changed on the topic in 22 years - we need to be in the community from time to time helping and doing the things we have covenanted to do, not always in Church activities and meetings.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    May 31, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    We are discussing whether valid disagreement constitutes prejudice and there are two teams skirmishing. Readers should keep in mind that this is a "moderated" discussion, meaning that there is a referee who controls what comments appear, and that referee may be ruling according to bias. Could the full argument for why disagreement is not prejudice ever appear here? Draw your own conclusion.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 31, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    @Swedish reader,

    Obviously in Sweden you government actually cares about people. Keep rocking! America is becoming secular like much of Europe!

    Follow you faith freely just leave it out of government and leave your citizens to their own divide.

  • Swedish reader Stockholm, Sweden
    May 31, 2012 1:46 a.m.

    I realize I missed a word, so let me rephrade:

    Polygamy has a LONGSTANDING legal precedent, since it has been legal in several muslim countries for hundreds of years. The legalization of gay marriage in Sweden and other places is very, very recent. That doesn't make it invalid - my question is why someone who vehemently asserts that it is a human right to have your relationship legally defined as marriage if it is between two consenting adults of the same sex doesn't also express similar sentiments regarding other kinds of relationships. Is he so consumed by his own situation that it's all he sees?

  • Swedish reader Stockholm, Sweden
    May 31, 2012 1:27 a.m.

    Prejudice against religion is very prevalent here. Anyone believing in a personal God is often looked at pretty much the same way as an adult who believes in Santa Claus, especially if they're Christian or Muslim. (It's much more politically correct to be buddhist, for some reaason.)
    As usual, RanchHand tries to make this discussion about gay marriage. His argument that we don't get to vote on the rights of others is flawed, beacuse it is not a human right to have your relationship legally defined as marriage. If he really think so, why isn't he arguing for polygamy as well (it, at least, has a legal precedent in that it has been legal in several muslim countries for centuries). Gay marriage is legal here in Sweden after a lengthy debate and a vote in parliament a couple of years ago. Most of the members of parliament aren't gay. Was it wrong for them to vote on the issue, too?

  • gdog3finally West Jordan, Utah
    May 31, 2012 1:11 a.m.

    Wow, the three pages of comments here cover quite a bit of perspectives. Some are dogmatic and hateful, but most are passionate and worth some thought (both for and against the church).

    Much of the opposition to both sides contain some meat to consume. Still, and it's unfortunate, there is to much reluctance to fairly re-examine oneself and their own stance.

    If you have problems with the LDS church, it doesn't mean there can't be things to respect. Likewise, if you are a devout member of the church, you can still consider flaws in certain patterns of behavior from within the culture of the faith.

  • Guam_Bomb BARRIGADA, GU
    May 31, 2012 12:40 a.m.

    I think often the problem is that people from one perspective get so upset when people from another perspective know very little about them an don't have much of a reason to find out more. Assuming prejudice on the part of the other perspective is just the pot calling the kettle black. Mormon's saying that academics are prejudiced is just as prejudiced as academics jeering at Mormon's out of ignorance.

    The whole premise of the article accentuates the differences between mormons and others. It doesn't take into account that the vast majority of non-mormons know very little about the religion. Mormons know a lot about other religions, because they so often have to defend their religion to others. But most other religions only know what they have been told by their pastor or priest. I'll be honest, it bothers me that it bothers so many other members of the church when they perceive anything that doesn't agree with their undstanding of the church as an attack.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 30, 2012 10:21 p.m.

    @Cinci Man

    "Critics don't have time to look for the truth of what we believe. Sad, but true."

    Wrong. I spent A LOT of time looking for the truth and I found it. Sad, but true.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 10:09 p.m.

    @a voice of reason
    so if i where to say I have nothing against LDS people as long as they don't act on their desire to be LDS by going to church or reading the bible because my beliefs (lets say I am a Southern Baptist and my clergy tells me your not a religion based on our interpretation of the bible) then I would be clear of claims of bias? The point being I think you are trying to split a hair that does not exist.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    May 30, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    AZRods: The church is not predudice against gays and lesbians.

    Fred Vader: The church had nothing to do with Prop 8.

    RanchHand: Our God is everyones god. We are all his children.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    May 30, 2012 8:46 p.m.

    Ranch Hand: I won't even begin to "preach" about God and Adam and Eve and etc, because you don't have to believe that. But do take a look at nature. Males always mate with females. The male elephant mates with the female so do the cougars, so do the lions. Male dogs mate with female dogs and male cats with female cats. Of course you can go to lower life forms who mate by themselves but that's not pertinent to this discussion. Male and female - that is the natural order of things. So why is it so different for humans? Why do they want to twist nature and the natural order and they want to mate with the same sex? Then they want to sanctify that unnatural union by calling it a marriage? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    May 30, 2012 8:36 p.m.

    @Kami,
    I couldn't agree with you more. Good neighbors are good neighbors whether they are LDS, Catholic, Baptist, or atheist. Religion doesn't make good neighbors. I have had plenty of good neighbors who came from many different religious ideologies. I have also had plenty of bad neighbors who came from different ideologies, including those of the LDS faith.

    @Riverton Cougar
    The fact that a neighbor gave keys to a Cadillac is unimportant. Maybe Kami never needed keys to the neighbor's Caddy or the neighbor didn't have a Caddy. What matters is that neighbors help neghbors. I have had some LDS neighbors who wouldn't give the time of day, as I am Catholic, and this did not sit well with them. I have also had liberal, atheist neighbors who were the same way. But I have also had good religious neighbors and good nonreligious neighbors.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    May 30, 2012 8:34 p.m.

    Sharrona once more you bring in scripture to do no more than make your point but completely disreguard all other scriptures around it. Even the one in Jacob as you read further indicates that if the father directs it then it is approved. That is where we differ from you in that we believe in continued revelation and that the reason for polgamy actually came from the Father. Also, David was chastised only after his relationship with Bathseba. Upon until that point that Lord states that the wives David had were given to him. Abraham another is shown that he too had multiple wives and in fact his son Isaac came from such. Jacob had multiple wives and thus his twelve sons from two different wives are the tribes of Israel. Many Christian churches don't understand that when the Lord directs, just do it. Joseph Smith understood this and obeyed.

    Tolstoy: Oh yes Ranchand does so state maybe not in this thread but any thread that may be controversial he comes out loud and clear that LDS members are not to vote their conscience. That we shouldn't be allowed to vote and that our votes shouldn't count.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 30, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    ExecutorIoh says:

    "Tolerance first starts with the one asking for it."

    I doubt you got the irony of your comment, right after calling gays mentally diseased (among other things).

    @Jeff;

    When are you going to put your own civil rights up to a majority vote? The civil rights of Americans do not belong on the ballot; not mine, not yours. Get it? (Probably not). You clearly don't understand that First Amendment, which gives people the right to worship whomever, however they please, you don't get to force us to follow your god's dictates with your vote.

    I don't hate Mormons. I don't dislike Mormons. I hate the things you do to others in the name of your god.

    @very concerned;

    When did your conscience say that it was moral to vote on the civil rights of others? That IS prejudice, it is also forcing your beliefs on us, even if you think it's "for the best", why not follow your god and let us choose to live our lives ourselves?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 30, 2012 7:59 p.m.

    @ Cinci Man

    "The LDS Church teaches us to pray to Heavenly Father in Christ's name. The Bible teaches the same thing. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to pray to Jesus, yet Christian churches all teach that as far as I know...

    We claim prejudice against ourselves, but do we not see it in ourselves? As for the questions above you raise, it shows that we do not do a good enough job. We need to understand one another, rather than fault. Most Christian churches would teach that the God head is one and the same, praying to Jesus IS praying to the Father (in essence not too different from us, the Nephites prayed to Jesus while He was there, and He did not tell them to stop, or correct them)

    We may understand the doctrine of prayer differently than most other Christian Churches, but their beliefs are no less sacred to them, than ours to us. If we truly want to wash ourselves of prejudice against ourselves, let us seek to be tolerant, and understanding of others first. One can disagree, respectfully, without being disagreeable.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 7:31 p.m.

    Bill in NE, well said-

    The LDS Church does not make any claims against gay persons. Rather, LDS teachings only make claims of morality regarding when a person acts, or rather gives heed to those feelings in one way or another. The distinction is obvious, but the anti-LDS neglect it. I would go as far as saying that it is only for convenience, to appear more convincing of their anti-LDS bias, to make such prejudiced arguments.

    If I argued against someone simply because they felt an attraction, then it would be very different. But the LDS Church doesn't do this, nor is anyone considered immoral because of their feelings or temptations.

    Anti-LDS is a literal Ad Hominem, where the LDS Church is making a claim about an act- the exact opposite of Ad Hominem. While gay-marriage proponents have argued that 'born this way' ties the act to the person, there are in fact LDS members (and others) identifying as gay but who do not act on it to satisfy moral cleanliness according to their beliefs- preserving the distinction between acts and feelings. Thus proving anti-LDS = prejudice, while the LDS Church is reasonable.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    May 30, 2012 7:21 p.m.

    The LDS Church teaches us to pray to Heavenly Father in Christ's name. The Bible teaches the same thing. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to pray to Jesus, yet Christian churches all teach that as far as I know. And Christian leaders criticize the LDS Church for not following the teachings of the Bible. Hmm. One would think that something so fundamental and clear ought to be universally followed. Even Christ himself taught us to pray to the Father.

    The LDS Church teaches us that Jesus Christ is a resurrected being and so does the Bible. He made details about his resurrected body quite clear and it is recorded clearly in the Bible. Yet other Christian churches teach that he gave up his body. But there is no scriptural reference of this other death nor of the whereabouts of his resurrected body. Why are Mormons criticized for following the Bible? There are so many wonderful books out there for people who really want to know what we believe. But those books are read almost exclusively among our members. Critics don't have time to look for the truth of what we believe. Sad, but true.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    May 30, 2012 7:00 p.m.

    "If you don't like it you can leave."

    Each time I've heard that makes me less concerned with mormon feelings.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    @Riverton Cougar: I suppose when God commanded Joshua to kill every living thing, he broke the commandments?
    Context, Joshua is the story of how God (to whom the World belongs) reconquered a portion of the earth Who relied on false gods, God’s Wrath was on Canaan, who’s measure of sin is now full(Gen 15:16).
    He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the Wrath of God abideth on him.(John 3:36)

    Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and cursing which come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fathers-that that they should have save it one wife ,and concubines should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.(Jacob 3:5)on polygamy.

    Jesus said … a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’(Mt 19:5)
    (D&C)132: 51-57 in context JS warns Emma to be faithful.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    @CI
    I think you "broadminded" diatribe about "leftist" pretty much says it all about how "liberal in webster sense of the word" you really are. Not sure there is a need for a counter argument given that you already provided your own.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:24 p.m.

    @jeff
    please tell us where ranchand has ever said or suggested that LDS people should not get to vote or that there should be a poll tax or any of the other claims you make about what they think. Maybe you should stick t speaking for yourself rather then assuming you know other intents.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:20 p.m.

    @TheProudDuck
    you claim scientific research that proves your claims? what research exactly would that be?

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:14 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    A great number of us (LDS and non-LDS) DO believe in God, and do believe He is very interested in our happiness. Therefore He gives us commandments to lead us safely among the minefields of life.

    No, we don't have the right to force our opinion on others, but we do have the right (in this country at least) to vote our consciences. We only naturally vote for those things which we believe will bring happiness and peace to the world.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:10 p.m.

    @cats
    well guess we can take that is a really big no then, you really do not see just how offensive your comments are

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 6:06 p.m.

    Prejudice begets prejudice. If the LDS Church (of which I'm a member) wants people to stop being prejudiced against it, it needs to stop being prejudiced against others. For, it's disingenuous to claim everyone should tolerate LDS beliefs and stances, when many LDS members do not tolerate the beliefs and stances of others.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    May 30, 2012 6:05 p.m.

    Who cares!
    I believe what I believe, so that about sums it up.
    Does any if this shake my beliefs?
    Nope.

  • Capella Bakersfield, CA
    May 30, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    Darth Vader in OK, Cats and Bill in Neb: Please stop creating fictional persecution.

    When you refer to doctrinal disagreements as"spewing hate", you reveal your lack of education on many levels. You are giving LDS a bad reputation with closed-minded rhetoric and visceral arguments. Academics and literate people know how to discuss ideas without knee-jerk reactions and whining. Why not consider Comment Sections as an opportunity to exchange your opinions in the marketplace of ideas?

    We all can learn a lot more when we are polite and listen, witness when asked, and stop the thin-skinned, defensive recriminations. Biblical believers have to contend with atheists, agnostics, skeptics every day in academic life. It is a great opportunity to be tested, challenged intellectually and spiritually, and to share Christ when asked.

    I find these DN comment sites a true effort to visit. You would do well to visit other Christian chat rooms and see how much scripture is discussed, and how opinions are held up to the Biblical standard.

    Everything else is as useless as "endless and vain geneologies".

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    May 30, 2012 4:57 p.m.

    SHarona of course it doesn't say mothers in the ten commandments, you can't be born of TWO women! You assertion is laughable.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 30, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    @esodije

    "Three reasons: (1) Mormons tend to be religious in fact (and not for political show); (2) Mormons are predominantly conservative; and (3) Mormons are predominantly Caucasian."

    Esodije, Why are these three reasons the case? Please explain in further detail. DNews denied this question for some reason. I'm assuming you're a member and can shed some light for me.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    May 30, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    Ranch hand, your name wouldnt be Thomas by any chance would it? AS in Doubting Thomas?

  • Semper Fi Bakersfield, CA
    May 30, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    This article cited no prejudice, just academics who disagree with Mormon doctrine. It didn't even cite what, if any, religion those academics were. NO context, no perspective.

    All religions are accepted in this country, but not inside individual churches. Any religious person can "run" for president; but individual citizens can choose to not to vote for a candidate based solely on the candidate's religion, should that be an issue for the voter. Just because one citizen would vote for any candidate does not mean that he is any more loving/liberal/gracious than the one who has religious convictions that prevents him from voting that way.

    What is revealing on every DN comment site is the almost total lack of Biblical references, reasons or restrictions mentioned. The majority of members here seem to think that they can redefine Biblical Christianity with their own definitions and that Biblical Christians are supposed to roll over and let the counterfeit gospel in. You have your churches, colleges and seminary classes for that. Stop equating other Christian's refusal of your 19th-century remake gospel to "masquerade" as Biblical truth.

    The Bible is the plumb-line. The Bible always will be.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    May 30, 2012 4:31 p.m.

    "Most of these "broadminded" liberals are actually some of the most narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet. They're open minded only toward those they agree with."

    There is actually scientific research that confirms this, or something like it. The concept is called "moral licensing." Basically, once we've accumulated enough mental brownie points to consider ourselves good people, we tend to license ourselves to let any further bother with common decency go by the board. I can't count how many times I've been flipped the bird in traffic by someone with "Mean people suck" and "Coexist" bumper stickers on his or her smugmobile.

    I imagine this same dynamic probably works somewhat with religious people as well, although their religion actually commands personal virtue as well as holding the right opinions, so the effect is probably mitigated at least in part.

    Of course if any liberal denies any of this, he's anti-science and a denier. Boo!

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 30, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Ranchhand has a special brand of anti-LDS prejudice (I think it extends to all practicing believers, but I'm not sure because it is almost always directed only at Latter-day Saints). Ranchhand says that we "don't get to vote on the rights of other Americans. You do not get to do that!"

    What is really meant by this is that, because many Latter-day Saints want to vote to prohibit same-gender marriage, they should be prohibited from voting. What does Ranchhand want? A poll tax? He has the same rights that we wish to maintain for ourselves: the right to vote according to our consciences. He does not have right (and thankfully, he doesn't have the authority) to achieve what he constantly demands--that we NOT vote for what we think is right.

    He writes again: "If you believe that "god" defined marriage, then by all means, follow your god's rule. You do NOT have the right to require others follow your god's dictates. Period."

    We absolutely have the right to vote according to what we think is correct; you have the right to disagree; our disagreement is resolved in the voting booth.

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    May 30, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    Three reasons: (1) Mormons tend to be religious in fact (and not for political show); (2) Mormons are predominantly conservative; and (3) Mormons are predominantly Caucasian.

  • Convert Cedar City, UT
    May 30, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    Prejudice is never acceptable. However, it has been with us since Cain. Prejudice against Mormons is an historical thread.

    Prejudice by Mormons against other churches and their members has also been an historical thread. I am always troubled by open ridicule of "JW's", "Polig's", black Baptists. Whispers of Church of Satan being the Catholics have faded over the years.

    But that sort of prejudicial labeling will live forever in the memories of those it offends. Just like the abuse the Saints withstood in the 1800's.

    It is natural for one group to downplay their own prejudice while pointing the finger at others.

    It is doubtful that group prejudice can be overcome. We can only look within ourselves. Do we intend to be Christ-like? If so then we must individually cease harming others through prejudice.

    Prejudice has been with humanity since Cain. But, it doesn't need to be us personally.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 30, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    Is prejudice acceptable?

    Good question. To Pre-Judge somebody it to judge before. Before what? Before the facts are known. Prejudice is the definition of ignorance because it involves judgement before all the facts are in.

    Who among us would want to be judged in this way?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 30, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    "The article is another example of someone assuming cause and effect in order to prove his point. Your neighbors didn't help you BECAUSE they are mormon; they helped because they are friendly neighbors."

    So Kami, your non-Utahn neighbors did all the stuff the author mentions? The stuff the author mentions (such as giving them the keys to the Cadillac) is not your typical "friendly neighbor" stuff. Besides, why would he make it a point to specifically talk about how friendly they were if they were the same as all his previous non-LDS neighbors?

    sharonna,

    You just epitomized the phrase "taking things out of context". David and Solomon had many wives, which were an abomination before God, but don't you find it interesting that he didn't refer to polygamy as an abomination in Jacob's case? You even quoted "if she be with another man ,and I have not appointed unto her by holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed." Does the conditional clause in the middle not give you any indication that there are exceptions?

    I suppose when God commanded Joshua to kill every living thing, he broke the commandments?

  • Shuzzie53 HAYWARD, CA
    May 30, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    They got some good Mormons in Pocatello!

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    Great points. Good work! Keep the word spreading!

  • barkermom Hurricane, UT
    May 30, 2012 2:04 p.m.

    Pete1215- You can have an opinion about someone that will make you want or not want to vote for him for president. I will choose to not vote for someone who believes that abortion is okay. I don't think that is prejudice. If you just wouldn't vote for him because he is a Mormon and you don't know anything about it that is prejudice.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 1:42 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska
    "The printing press destruction was never considered unconstitutional except by those wishing to destroy the LDS Church. "

    Um... destroying the property of others is illegal. I have no idea why you are defending it.

    "Polagamy was never stated as unconstitutional or illegal until well after the LDS Church was in UTAH and only to keep it from becoming a state. "

    It was illegal in Illinois state law. Fairwiki states 'Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. '

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    May 30, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    There seems to the idea out there that believe too many converse facts to be truth. Why do people think that because people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman has anything to do with dignity of gay people. Just because I go to a gas station and buy gas for my car, doesn't mean that I hate diesel or people that drive diesel vehicles. Prop 8 is anti-gay about as much as my car is anti-diesel.

    I am not anti-gay. I have several good friends that are gay, but that doesn't mean that I accept homosexuality as anything beyond a sexual vice or mental disease. Additionally, it isn't about dignity or respect, that comes from within and has never been a package that a political figure or judge hands you. If you want respect, start by treating others with respect and people will give it back to you. Hate and anger only begets more hate and anger. Tolerance first starts with the one asking for it.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 30, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    Dear Spring Street: I guess it's always easiest to mischaracterise the comments of others when you don't have any intelligent counter arguments yourself.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    May 30, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska, Polygamy was never stated as unconstitutional or illegal.

    But against the 10 commandments: The Fifth Commandment,Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother.
    Ephesians 6:2,3. Honor your Father and Mother[not Mothers]. God distinguishes father and mother from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.

    The BoM agrees with no polygamy, behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me saith the LordFor there shall be not any man among you save it be one wife&(Jacob 2:24,27)

    Seventh Commandment,'You shall not commit adultery.' JS agrees ( D&C 132:41)and if she be with another man ,and I have not appointed unto her by holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    May 30, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    The article is another example of someone assuming cause and effect in order to prove his point. Your neighbors didn't help you BECAUSE they are mormon; they helped because they are friendly neighbors. I'm LDS, but I recognize that you can find good neighbors everywhere. I have mostly LDS neighbors right now, and they are mostly friendly, helpful neighbors. But I've lived outside of Utah most of life, with perhaps only one LDS neighbor within blocks, and my neighbors were about as friendly and helpful as my Utah neighbors are.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    May 30, 2012 1:04 p.m.

    Suppose a certain presidential contender accepted the LDS belief in Spirit Children, waiting in queue of corporeal bodies. If this belief motivated him to wish to remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood, then I might vote against him because he is of that belief (and by association a Mormon). Is this prejudice?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 30, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    @cats
    "You have to do those things when you are trying to convince yourself and justify yourself. It's so sad. No...it's tragic!"

    Do you really not see how that comment is dripping with prejudice?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:52 p.m.

    Dear RG, Bill in Nebraska and Utes Fan: Your comments are ALL excellent and based on logic and rational thought--not on prejudice and emotion.

    Unfortunately, there are always those who spend all their time attacking the Church in any form they can. You have to do those things when you are trying to convince yourself and justify yourself. It's so sad. No...it's tragic!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    @AZ rods
    So explain how if a non LDS person has a "different opinion" (often based on inaccurate information) of the LDS Church it is prejudice but when the LDS Church has a "different opinion" often base on inaccurate information) of LGBT people's rights it is not prejudice. It seems to me as someone that does not belong to either group that these prejudices are both wrong. It also seems in the case that the des news and many of the those posters that claim to be LDS on these threads (although not necessarily reflective of the LDS Church itself) to be the old axiom those quickest to give offense are the quickest to also take offense.

  • barkermom Hurricane, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    I don't think it's prejudice if you don't agree with the doctrine of the LDS church. You can say that you don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet and I am fine with that. Saying that someone should not be president of the United States simply because he is a Mormon is NOT okay. The fact that the media can make negative comments about LDS people when those same comments if spoken about another group of people would not be acceptable shows that prejudice happens and that it is acceptable to many. Thank goodness there are many reasonable and accepting people in this world who give us horrible LDS people a chance! And let me say that I'm sorry to all those who have had negative experiences with members of the church. We are only human.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    @Bill;

    Your church and your god define marriage for you. You don't get to vote on the rights of other Americans. You do not get to do that! So, yes, we were raising money to prevent our rights from being revoked by YOU.

    If you believe that "god" defined marriage, then by all means, follow your god's rule. You do NOT have the right to require others follow your god's dictates. Period.

    @RG;

    If/When "god" tells me in person that I have to follow your rules, then I'll do it. Until then, I will absolutely not blindly follow the dictates of your leaders, I do not believe they speak to god or that he speaks to them. I don't believe in your god anyway - fictional beings can't say anything.

    The DN refused to print my comment to Cats. You think we're close-minded? We're not the ones trying to change your lives, are we!

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @windigo77
    "I'm sorry Mormons, but when your religion flies in the face of OBVIOUS FACTS, you don't get to claim you are being persecuted by 'THE REAL WORLD'."
    ---------
    It is not disagreements with LDS teachings that the article is concerned about. Latter-Day Saints are the first to expect disagreements. Read the post by "Cats" above - it is the perfect example of prejudice. That example has nothing to do with disagreements with doctrine or ignoring facts. As far as facts are concerned, there are plenty that critics of the LDS Church like to ignore.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 30, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    I was betting myself that I would see posts on this article that said that Mormons deserved what they get. Guess what? I won the bet!

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    May 30, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    To the critics: So it is ok to persecute us on our beliefs. Ranchhand the problem is that yes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did ask the membership to assist and raise cash for the Pro Proposition 8 side. So what. I guess it was equally okay for the LGBT (not glbt) to ask for cash from the hollywood, liberal side. If you go and check though the LDS Church didn't say you had to contribute so it was done by the members agency. That again puts it where you want it. Your prejudice against anything LDS because you are a practicing homosexual.

    windigo77: Maybe you should go back and recheck your facts more carefully. Your own bias is showing through. Remember no one knows the DNA of the tribe of Joseph, not Judah. The printing press destruction was never considered unconstitutional except by those wishing to destroy the LDS Church. Polagamy was never stated as unconstitutional or illegal until well after the LDS Church was in UTAH and only to keep it from becoming a state. Again get your facts right before you spew hate and anti-Mormon propaganda.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:57 a.m.

    I would submit that prejudice against race, religion, or creed is far different from attempting to discourage homosexual behavior and it's surrounding implications. Apples and oranges.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    May 30, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    To Ranchhand: The LDS church asks us to be civil, and in fact, to love everyone, which includes LGBT. But God was the one who invented marriage, and taught us how it works, and said that it requires opposite genders. So if you don't like the "traditional" definition of marriage, don't blame LDS people, but instead take it up with God. But be careful; God is a lot smarter than you are and will win the argument every time.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    To wax more spiritual, might I suggest that God Himself is light years (infinitely) ahead of us in the intelligence department. No matter how much learning we get, we are pretty stupid compared to Him. So there's not much to brag about. Actually, those who are *learned* would be better off showing gratitude for their opportunities to get that learning. Unfortunately, the human condition also tends to lead us to think we did it all ourselves. We have to resist that human condition, or natural man. Pride is an ugly thing.

    I appreciate this non-LDS person taking a shot at an accurate description.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Unfortunately, the prejudice seems to be a classic case of those who are learned thinking they are wise. Being learned is good . . . if one hearkens to the counsel of the Lord. (See 2 Nephi 9:28) The human condition is such that education, though it can be good, leads many to think they are superior, and can at least shrug off spiritual things if not outright ridicule them or persecute those who believe in them. I submit that reconciling man's knowledge and education with spiritual things is one of life's greatest challenges and opportunities.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    It's sad some people are so bitter and unhappy that they never miss a chance to attack the Church on any article or basis they can find.

    I once attended a presentation for the CLIO awards in Washington, D.C. When the ad the LDS Church had produced (and had won awards) was shown, a large, audible "BOOOO" went throughout the audience. The ad was about "The Good Samaritan." The "boooo" didn't happen until the end of the ad when it stated it was produced by "The Mormons." It was pretty shocking and very sad.

    Most of these "broadminded" liberals are actually some of the most narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet. They're open minded only toward those they agree with.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    @Shaden
    "He will surely be marginalized and ridiculed among the academic community (and, doubtlessly, from those commenting on this thread--see above) for his argument."

    For what? Goodness, there isn't a secret cabal of people who hate you. What he said is really non-controversial. It's not like he was saying that any disagreement with Mormon doctrine is prejudice.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 30, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    I attended the University of Utah and I noted that some non-Mormons were appallingly ignorant about Mormons. I would wonder where they came up with the weird stuff.

    Of all my experiences at the University of Utah these experiences have helped me the most when accepting diversity. When I approach other cultures and outsiders tell me what they (the particular culture of interest) are like, if it is negative or demeaning I take it with a grain of salt because I know how clueless some people can be when living in the middle of another culture.

  • Shaden Lincoln, NE
    May 30, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    The good professor from Idaho State is right on, and I appreciate that he had the guts to write a story like that. He will surely be marginalized and ridiculed among the academic community (and, doubtlessly, from those commenting on this thread--see above) for his argument.

    As an LDS academic myself, I have witnessed the prejudice that members of the LDS church experience in higher education. It is perfectly acceptable for academics to ridicule the religious beliefs of those members. I found the constant refrains in academia of "equality," "acceptance," and "coexistence" only to be thinly-guised references to pro-LGBT causes, but never to religious tolerance. Because the LDS church does not line up lock stock and barrel with the secular winds of doctrine that prevail in academia, the church is consistently ridiculed, or viewed with suspicion.

    It would be nice if we all could be civil to each other, regardless of our respective persuasions.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    May 30, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    "Frankly, while I personally believe that prejudice against any group is unacceptable, there is a sort of justice when Karma comes back to shake your hand."

    The prejudice against Mormons existed long before Prop 8. Over 150 years earlier. It's neither Karma, nor justice when it continues, even after Prop. 8, it's still plain and simple prejudice.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    May 30, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    "Predudice is born of ignorance" states it perfectly.
    Ranchhand, saying that Mormons "seem to think" prejudice against glbt is acceptable at the request of their leaders? Not stretching the facts a little here are we?
    Or please provide evidence, anywhere that says that.
    The fact that we have a different opinion on that subject does not imply prejudice.
    And once again, the topic is not about glbt RH, try staying on topic.