Comments about ‘Is prejudice against Mormons acceptable?’

@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.

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.

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.

@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. '

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.

Great points. Good work! Keep the word spreading!

They got some good Mormons in Pocatello!

"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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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

@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.

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

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".

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

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.