Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church posts Elder Holland speech on 'big issues' linked with the hope of democracy’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 4 2013 9:25 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

As loathe as I am to correct an Apostle, our government is based on the rule of law, not popular whim. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what to eat for dinner. We are supposed to be a Republic, based on laws that establish our rights and whose origin are divine in nature. That we elect some our leaders in a Democratic fashion is true, our society is a Republic, or should be at least.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

Coach biff
So if one subtracts democracy from a republic what does one have. So which is the more important.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." Alexander Tytler

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

Couldn't have said it better, Mountanman. Skeptic, your question is phrased incorrectly. We elect some of our leaders democratically, some are appointed. Our President isn't exactly chosen democratically is he/she? What is the point of your question?

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

Skeptic,

It's not a zero sum equation. Our voting rights are enumerated in our laws.

Manzanita
Las Vegas, NV

This quote from the article: "It is encouraging that, at least at present, our First Amendment commits us to the more protective interpretation of religious freedom. We will see what future interpretations might bring."

I'm not sure the Church should be lecturing on the interpretation of First Amendment protections until it admits there is absolutely no risk under the First Amendment that the Church could be forced to solemize same sex marriages in its temples. Until or unless the First Amendment is repealed, this line of argument is pure fear mongering. If the Church actually believes the First Amendment will be repealed, then it should say so. Otherwise, I'm not sure how relighous freedom is being sufficiently threatened to warrant the Church's recent obsession with the topic.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

Republic - Freedom
Democracy - Oppression
Peoples Republic - Dictatorship
Peoples Democratic Republic - Oppressive Dictatorship

greatbam22
andrews afb, MD

Manzanita,

Really? You believe it is fear mongering when there is more and more disregard and blasphemous talk against religion in this country?

From what I understand of the scriptures there are supposed to be plenty of Anti-Christs in our day. I believe there already are plenty.

The responsibility of the prophets, apostles, and other general authorities to warn us and let us know what is happening is part of their responsibility.

Prophets in the Book of Mormon warned the people before they went down the paths they went down.

With the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised that in the not to distant future the 1st amendment could be under attack. With all that has happened in the last few years I don't put it out of the realm of possibility.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

There is NO liberty under a Socialist - Marxist - Progressive - Communist state. Only forced atheism and punishment for decenter s....punishment such as using the IRS as a means to intimidate groups of people prior to an election.

Golf Gaffer
Idaho Falls, ID

I appreciate Elder Holland's remarks and other of the Brethren concerning religious liberty. It's too bad that so many members do not take their warnings seriously and worse actively support either knowingly or unknowingly those laws i.e. non-discrimination, gender expression/identity, gay marriage etc. that when implemented force religious expression into the shadows. I fear that most people have no idea just how close the USA is to losing religious freedom. These laws and actions ultimately are really aimed at the destruction of the traditional family. Those who oppose such laws or ordinances are called haters, bigots etc and receive hate mail among other forms of shutting down dissent.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Elder Holland said democracy is based on "an assumption, a hope and a belief that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil, right over wrong, virtue over vice," and that religious freedom is a foundation of that hope and belief.

========

Please note: "that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil"

Far too many on the uber-right side of the spectrum step beynd their own liberty and choose for others.
They seek to legislate morality as defined by the dictates of their own conscience.
They want a Theocracy.

No different than the Taliban or Shria Law.

Forcing others to "Choose The Right" so that none will be lost was Lucifer's Plan.
and
Even Alma taught Amulek while watching innocent women and children being cast in the fire - that taking away another person's Free Agency thwart the will of God -- because even the Wicked must be allowed to do their Wickedness.

BTW - Elder Oaks taught us a Good, Better, and Best.

We should choose good, seek for better, until we finally achieve the Best.

David
Centerville, UT

Stretching forth a hand to stabilize the ark is a dangerous place to be. I'd trust an apostle any and every day.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@patriot
"There is NO liberty under a Socialist - Marxist - Progressive - Communist state. Only forced atheism and punishment for decenter s"

That'd be rather scary if it were at all accurate but as a Christian and a Progressive myself I know that's just plain false. How about you let Progressives say what they stand for and I won't try and assert what Tea Partiers or Conservatives stand for?

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@Manzanita

"...until it admits there is absolutely no risk..."

Based on whose interpretation? Although laws seem so "concrete" and "bulletproof", they are nonetheless open to the interpretations of those sitting in the judge's seat. So maybe based on your understanding of the law there is no risk, but go poll 100 lawyers and see if they all agree with you. I'm sure there are attorneys all over the country willing to fight the church's 'discrimination' pro bono. While the LGBT community has assured the nation it does not intend to sue churches, unfortunately the LGBT is not a single unified/chartered entity. All it takes is one couple to file a lawsuit. In New Mexico we've recently seen the lawsuit against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a wedding despite her fundamental disagreement with same-sex marriage. Talk about legislative coercion.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"an assumption, a hope and a belief that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil, right over wrong, virtue over vice,"

---

Bigotry and discrimination, sir, are not "good" over evil. Religious freedom applies to every single American citizen, not just the ones you approve of.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Blue AZ Cougar;

Until your church is forced to marry heterosexual, non-member couples in your temples there is no way they can be forced to marry an LGBT couple.

Until your church is forced to marry heterosexual "unworthy" MEMBERS in your temples, there is no way they can be forced to marry an LGBT couple.

Anybody saying otherwise is fear-mongering in the worst way (thou shalt not bear false witness, right?).

the truth
Holladay, UT

@LDS Liberal

And the UBER left legislates their view of morality, it is no different.

But all laws are legislated morality.

The point of a representative republic, is to make out laws represent the best in public morality.

No matter what system you use ther always be an unhappy minority who disagrees with a law,

In our system they can change

-
-
@Coach Biff

Laws do not establish our rights.

God establishes our rights (see declaration of independence),

People what all the rights,

they give some to the local government and give some to the federal government.

The primary respsibl;ity republ;ican government is to protect those rights.

Golf Gaffer
Idaho Falls, ID

I just read that the ENDA bill regarding religious freedom just passed cloture in the Senate. This would greatly reduce religious freedom in the USA particularly among small business. There are religious institution exemptions but the Democrats are already crowing about how they will be stripped from the final bill. Some of the language is so vague even the normal progressive press is calling this a trial lawyer's dream. The bill is guaranteed to pass the Senate thanks to 5 republicans who joined the Democrats making it filibuster proof. One of those is our own Orin "I love the Power" Hatch. He is perhaps the greatest threat to economic and religious freedom to ever come out of Utah since the good Senator Smoot threw the country into the depression with his Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. With good respecters of liberty, the constitution and religious freedom like Hatch, Flake, Reid and others of LDS Faith in the Senate...what do we have to worry about. Thank you Brethren.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

From Elder Holland's talk:

Allow me one aside here. Inasmuch as more than two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated nevertheless do say they believe in God, it may well be that part of the reason for this drift away from formal church affiliation has something to do with how churches are perceived. More than two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated say “religious institutions are too concerned with money” (70 percent) and too deeply entangled in politics (67 percent).7 A word to the wise for all churches."

Amen
Yet it seems we are marching ever forward toward involvement in political issues.

The birth of the "religious right" and the increasing entaglement between religion and politics has been a huge detriment to both.
Another factor not mentioned, but I'm guessing also,plays a factor are scandals and corruption committed by church leaders.

If we are going to defend every other religion's practice of its beliefs in the public square where do we ever draw a line? If so, why and where should the line be drawn? Do we allow Christian Science children to die without medical care? Do we allow the practice of polygamy?

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

For those who disagree with the use of the word "democracy" to describe our govt. It is simply useful shorthand. Many countries use the word Republic and have nothing to do with representative government or the rule of law.

No country I know of operates as a true or pure democracy (though some small towns in New England still do). All are representative democracies where the people vote for folks to make and enforce the laws. Call it what you want. Note that EVERY president in my lifetime (including Reagan) described our nation as a democracy.

As to the rule of law? No piece of paper can enforce that. Rather the people must be wedded to the rule of law.

to comment

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