Comments about ‘LDS Church creates new web materials in support of religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Sept. 10 2013 9:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

Redshirt,
You have a point, but Islam is also a religion, and it has greatly expanded its religious liberty and power. What is good for the goose is not always so good for the gander when it comes to conflicting religions; and that is one of the many reasons why organized religion and corporate churches should be kept out of politics and the public square. It most often is the innocent who suffer the most from inane religious and church conflics. Also, in my previous post I was referencing the source of the article, nevertheless it pretty much applies across the board.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

So what is the 11th Article Of Faith?

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

Isn't it perversely interesting that those who freely flaunt their sexuality, an intensely private aspect of one's life, in public, find no room to consider the rights of those who wish to simply live their religion 24/7, which includes the hours they are in the view of the public.

It is also perversely interesting that those who reject religion try to dictate the doctrines the religious people are supposed to believe and follow.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Shazandra;

Who said anything about monogamy or speaking with god?

@John Pack Lambert of Michigan;

"It is easy to support those things that you agree with. We need to speak out in favor of things we find questionable. ... should see that allowing such is a question or religious freedom and should be allowed."

--- So you support gay marriage? Since there are many religious organizations that approve of it and, their religious freedom is violated by laws preventing it, right?

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

The teaching of personal opinion as doctrine in LDS Church organizations:

This definitely happens at times even though clearly forbidden:

We have been told in General Conference that no teacher has a right to teach his or her own opinion in lieu of doctrine, or to substitute their personally created lesson rather than following the guide given in the lesson books. I have seen situations when false ideas have been presented in a talk or class when the person so teaching has been corrected publicly (so every one knew the false idea being taught was not doctrinal) by the presiding authority, and even one teacher being relieved of her calling when she continued to proclaim her own agenda.

The Church in the days of Christ and his apostles warned of false teachers who sneaked in false doctrines. They could still be a problem when not dealt with in a timely manner.

The President of the Church in a recent General Conference even made sure that members were informed that sometimes even apostles gave their considered opinions in a talk.

Gracie
Boise, ID

To Shazandra: In answer to your question about why I think nobody called the teacher about his/her spouting false doctrine, I quote sukiyhtaky's Comment: "Not being LDS I thought I must have misunderstood what the teacher was saying and returned the next Sunday only to hear the exact same sentiment. Nobody stood to counter it and I havn't been back since".

I was raised Protestant and became LDS in college so I know the territory pretty well. I loved the churches I went to even though I was looking for much deeper spiritual bedrock. There were, at least a few decades ago, many Protestant ministers who said or wrote the kinds of statements that you refer to. I heard a few of those pronouncements, myself. Whether they currently describe Satan as early Christian artworks depict him is irrelevant to me now. With so much need in the world I think it's best to concentrate on the good we can do as a team within our mutual common ground, working with God-worshipping religions of all kinds.

Ginger
Ravenna, OH

Gildas, you have been deceived. There was and now is no teacher script. The older manuals each contained outlines for three distinct lessons which the teacher could prepare as inspired for his/her class. Deviation was designed in.
The newer youth courses do away with lesson manuals entirely. The teacher prepares for teaching in the manner of Jesus Christ from an online outline but there is no script. The lectures are being replaced with discussions. See Come Follow Me

The problem isn't so much teachers or speaker presenting speculative or false doctrine, the problem is the listeners blandly accepting what was said without challenging it. We grown-ups. We need to think when we listen and challenge what isn't right.

When someone says something disrespectful or false about another religion, that needs to be challenged and corrected. The reason for the decline of religious rights, if any, are that we are uncritically accepting the nonsense that is being shouted at us in the community and the church. The source of this problem is not the president of the church it is those who then re-interpret what he meant.

Kirk R Graves
West Jordan, UT

@Lagomorph
There are some pretty commonly accepted reasons for instituting government. They generally come down to 2 things. 1 protect the population from predation internally. We solve that through the use of Police and the Court System. 2 Protect the population from attack by external forces. We solve that through the use of Military.
I think that very few people would agree that the core purpose of government is to guarantee everyone has contraception. So, there is a significant difference between using someone's taxes to pay for war they do not support and requiring someone to violate their religious convictions regarding contraception. The first fulfills the primary role of government, the second fulfills, ..., well, nothing.

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

@Ginger
"The problem isn't so much teachers or speaker presenting speculative or false doctrine, the problem is the listeners blandly accepting what was said without challenging it."

In the words I've attended, the members are pretty ignorant as to the doctrine, and certainly as to the history of the church. And the manuals are not that helpful, containing half-truths such as Eliza Snow was Brigham Young's wife (not mentioning that she was first Joseph Smith's wife). So you get a bunch of listeners accepting what is said because they're not intellectually capable or prepared to challenge it.

And let's face it, a lot of converts would not be members of this church if they possessed personalities that challenge things they hear from others that do not go along with what they've been taught.

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

Furthermore, during the Prop

The Taxman
Los Angeles, CA

Furthermore, during the Prop 8 campaign I spoke up regarding some false materials that were presented in church meetings. Speaking up did little good as I was ignored by the members and leadership alike. The false information on the brochures was quietly changed, but no retractions or corrections were issued.
The feeling I got was that people feel you are introducing a contentious spirit into meetings if you question things, even if false information is being presented.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

@ Ginger

I never stated that there was a "script" for teaching I referred to the lesson "guide" which is - a "guide". A teacher's personality and personal supportive experiences legitimately differentiates one class from another, not the doctrines taught or strange lesson material.

It is not intended that a teacher just read the manual aloud. Questions that inspire uplifting thoughts and participation are the mainstay of each class; the nature of the questions are supplied in the manual. The teacher is to direct the discussion to sound conclusions attended by his testimony.

It is when personal, non-doctrinal, non-scriptural, ideas are taught, or personal agendas and tangents followed, that the Church has needed to reiterate that church doctrines backed by scripture and authoritative references need to be taught in classes and talks, and the guide followed.

The idea of a class or a talk is to establish and increase faith in "sound doctrine" not to titillate people with outlandish statements, or wrest scripture to make it seem to support the philosophies of men. I have often challenged these false philosophies when they arose in a class, which sadly they do too often.

Ginger
Ravenna, OH

@Gildas

Many people consider orthodox LDS doctrine as outlandish and isn't that what it is? After all we have "my ways are not your ways, saith the Lord" and we have three full books of canon scripture which are radically revisionary, even revolutionary.

Sound doctrine is good but it must be the fullness of doctrine not the watered down versions which have become all too popular as the church tries to integrate with evangelicals. Take our doctrine of the Godhead, do other churches respect our right to believe in three distinct beings in the Godhead two of which were once as man is? Some do, many go nonlinear. This is a good example of religious tolerance or lack of it. Does the church stop teaching the doctrine of the Godhead to patch up the differences or does it teach correct doctrine?

rightascension
Provo, UT

"we must protect the rights of others, including the most vulnerable and the least popular,"

Meaning the LDS Church, which these days seems to fit both descriptions.

This site's purpose is rather obviously transparent. However, if the LDS Church wants to stand its ground against same sex marriage and one sex priesthood -- it will have to in more overly preemptive ways, such as advocating the sort of reforms in housing, work and benefits that would make same sex marriage necessary.

Joshua H.
Bountiful, Utah

There is far more religious intolerance coming from the left than there is from the right. There are some commentors on here that need to open their eyes to that fact. As an athiest minister the left has forced me to start celebrating christmas because not celebrating christmas is actually an expression of my atheism...and they don't want me expressing my religion...so I have to celebrate Theism. hmmmmmmmmm.

Bob K
porland, OR

Two major and popular articles on DN claim that religious freedom is being attacked.

Actually, the rise of religious influence in politics is the shocking and unfortunate change of recent decades. We used to be content to let the Government do its best to protect the rights and beliefs of all, but, today, this is called "blocking religious freedom"

60 years ago, it was common in many churches in parts of the USA to preach that the separation of Blacks and Whites was God's plan. To a majority of Americans, especially the younger ones, the issue of how to handle Gay people is settled, but some churches are fighting it, perhaps because they have no convenient way to fit acceptance into their doctrine.

As for public accomodations -- many States have laws that say a business open to the public must serve everyone. Such laws list particular groups that have been victims of discrimination in the past.

I think that citizens of Utah and other areas that do not have anti-discrimination laws have no business in the laws of other States. Making up stories about "Gay agenda" etc are beneath members of any Christian church.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Truthseeker

there is a vast difference between a Church compromising its own principals and the government forcing them to compromise their principals - a fact that no one on the fashionable intolerant left seems to comprehend

JD Jones
Salt Lake City, UT

There are cases in which a Church should compromise and indeed abandon its principles. Who favors allowing religious believers to avoid medical treatment for their children who will die if they don't receive it? Not me. In such cases, the government should step in and put parents on trial for manslaughter. Does the fashionable, religious right comprehend this?

to comment

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