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
Coach biffSo if one subtracts democracy from a republic what does one
have. So which is the more important.
"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
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?
Skeptic,It's not a zero sum equation. Our voting rights are
enumerated in our laws.
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 Until or unless the First Amendment is repealed, this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First Amendment will be repealed, then it should say so.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.
Republic - FreedomDemocracy - OppressionPeoples Republic -
DictatorshipPeoples Democratic Republic - Oppressive Dictatorship
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.
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.
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
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.andEven 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
Stretching forth a hand to stabilize the ark is a dangerous place to be.
I'd trust an apostle any and every day.
@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?
@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
"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.
@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?).
@LDS LiberalAnd 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 BiffLaws 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.
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.
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."AmenYet 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?
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.
I don't know why the DN moderators have refused to post this comment.
Perhaps another try?@Blue AZ Cougar;Until the LDS church
is forced to marry heterosexual, non-member couples in their temples and until
the LDS church is forced to marry 'unworthy' heterosexual MEMBER
couples in their temples, you needn't fear that the LDS church will be
forced to marry "sinner" LGBT couples in their temples.Anybody telling you otherwise if trying to scare you (fear-mongering) and
they're also lying as can be seen by the simple fact that the LDS church is
NOT forced to marry the aforementioned heterosexual couples in their temples.
@Ranch:So you're saying I have to wait until it actually
happens before I can concern myself with the issue? Isn't that like
leaving your door unlocked at night until a criminal eventually enters? Or
perhaps I should let me 6-year old walk to school alone until he's finally
kidnapped...Sorry, but I refuse to be told I can't concern
myself with something until it has been forced upon me. I'd rather be
cautious about the whole thing, because I wouldn't put it past some of the
brilliant lawyers in this country to do just that. Call me paranoid, but
it's a paranoia stemming from distrust with the real intentions of those in
the LGBT community.
Blue AZ Cougar;Our "real intentions" are to be treated
equally with other citizens in this country. Our "real intentions" are
to be able to marry the person we love, just like you do. Those are our
"real intentions".In the meantime, why don't you go
read your bible and ponder what Jesus commanded you: "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you". That is such a simple concept; I'm sure
he didn't intend you to discrminate against those who are different than
Ranch suggests that "Jesus didn't intend to discriminate against those
who are different." However, Jesus repeatedly discriminated in favor of the
Jews and against the non-Jews (Canaanites, Samarians, and others). Jesus said
that he was sent only to the Jews ("the lost sheep of the House of
Israel"). He initially refused to heal the daughter of the Syrophenician
woman because she was not a Jew, saying, "It is not meet to take the
children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." The woman persisted by
answering him, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from
their masters’ table." Only then did Jesus relent and heal her
daughter. Matt. 15:22-28, Mark 7:25-30).
the usofa is a 'democratic republic'-- we are a hybrid -- not a pure
democracy by any means, and not a pure republic -- the hybrid works for us -- we
just have a problem with the descriptive terms -- so when we say we want to
'spread democracy', we only mean it in a hybrid sense, i.e. we really
only mean it in our form -- what is good for usa is good for the world, correct?
-- problem = no other country has the same 'make-up' and history as we
do...so perhaps being open-minded to other forms of'democracy'
and 'democratic republics' would be in order...if religious freedom is
guaranteed and protected in another country, why do we need to be so critical?
There are many countries where the people simply do not want our form of
democracy, and where the people believe that their religious freedom is actually
'safer' than here in the crazy USA!
@Ranch"different than you"? Respectfully, I think we're
arguing apples and oranges. Homosexuality itself is a behavior which at best,
will not propagate the species. At worst, . . . well, the DN probably
wouldn't post my comment if I accurately described Sodomy. Until the last 10-15 years of rulings from liberal judges, homosexuality and
same-sex marriage were viewed for centuries as unhealthy for society. It's
not like homosexuals ever did have marriage rights in this country. They are
being "constructed" as we speak. The GLBT community has cleverly
convinced society this is about "equal rights," a phrase that rightly
should awaken in any patriotic citizen a call to arms. But, in this case, to
couch homosexuality in any terms that remind us of "equal rights" is an
affront to true civil rights. "Equal rights" based on undesirable
sexual behavior; "C'mon man."As with other things, I
believe the Founding Fathers would be aghast at what is "protected"
today by the constitution in the name of the virtues they espoused. Another
example is the "protection" of pornography in the name of "free
speech". Another, the "right" to an abortion in the name of
In other words, if one considered the basic act that constitutes homosexuality,
one would see that it is a poor basis for any argument of “equal
rights.” Yes, these issues are complex. I do believe that some may have
a biological propensity to same-sex attraction, but that does not make it
desirable for the sake of the country, community, society, or the individual.
Neither does it make it uncontrollable. We are human beings, not animals. We
have a soul and a Father in Heaven.I do not buy into the argument
that sex is uncontrollable. The definition of marriage between a man and a
woman has left many people successfully living celibate lives outside of its
boundaries. I believe the notion that there is no control of sexuality is a
falsehood. This notion is one the foundation philosophies that sets up all the
falsehoods necessary for the justification of homosexuality and same-sex
marriage. It starts there and steps up, falsehood upon falsehood, till we get
to the courts condoning the behavior.
@ TruthseekerAt least for the church I belong to, The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, it’s more of a case that the Church is
having political issue (with significant moral implications) being thrust on
them. They have traditionally avoided taking political stances. These
political issues are more and more intruding on morals long espoused by most
churches, and for that matter, the majority of society. Many are seeming to
buy into the arguments against traditional values, but nevertheless, the Church
will remain strong even though its core doctrines that once were common across
denominations and society are being eroded.
re:rw123"They have traditionally avoided taking political
stances."No more.The LDS Church, Presiding
Bishopric, to be precise, is party to a statement, "Standing Together for
Religious Freedom" protesting the contraceptive mandate included in the ACA,
"whether we agree with it or not." My question, unanswered,
is if we're going to defend practices/prohibitions by other religions that
we don't necessarily believe in ourselves how can we draw a line anywhere?
It is utter nonsense. How does a gay married couple
harm you or society? Prop 8 proponents couldn't/didn't produce any
evidence of harm. My life hasn't changed one iota since I moved into a
neighborhood with a wonderful lesbian couple. I also know of a gay couple who
adopted a young man from foster care, disowned by his bio parents because he was
gay. Thanks to that couple he now has a future to look forward to. I'm not
gay, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live out my life without
the companionship of someone I loved. I don't know why/what causes
people to be gay. I leave it to God.
@rw123;1) More heterosexuals practice "sodomy" than
homosexuals (do you even know what makes up the term?).2)
"...homosexuality and same-sex marriage were viewed for centuries as
unhealthy for society." By you so-called "Christians".
Until you came along, in many cultures it was revered as having identities from
both genders. One could reasonably conclude that Christianity=bigotry and that
Christianity is the "undesirable" behavior.3) "...equal
rights" is an affront to true civil rights. "Complete and
utter nonsense. The affront to civil ritghts is that you believe you are worthy
and homosexuals are not. We're all "sinners", after all.4) "In other words, if one considered the basic act that constitutes
homosexuality..."All you think about when you see a gay couple
is sex and not the love between the couple. Who is the real pervert here?
@Ranch"go read your bible and ponder what Jesus commanded you"Why base your argument on a book you don't believe in? Or if you
do believe in the Bible, you do not understand it. Perhaps you're familiar
with the passages where Jesus goes amongst the sinners, not to pat them on the
back and tell them everything they do is alright, but to call them to repentance
and teach them the right way. With love, yes, but correction nonetheless. You
equate his message of love, peace, "turning the other cheek", and
'anti-discrimination' with the false notion that we are to accept
people with unconditional regard for the things they do, which is not true.
Jesus' love was best shown when he said to the woman, "Go, and sin no
more." Or in the parable of the lost sheep, after being derided because
"this man receiveth sinners." What about the scriptures that teach us
that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance? Or the
scriptures that teach us that Christ came to save us from our sins, but not in
our sins? What about those? Are those not worth mentioning?
@Blue AZ Cougar;I've read your bible, probably more than you
have, and in two languages. Just because I don't believe it's divine
(you do), doesn't mean I can't use it to point out to you how
you're failing in your own beliefs. Additionally, sin is a religious
concept and since I don't "believe" in the divinity of your bible,
sin is something you, the believer, need to worry about. I do not believe that
being gay or living a good (gay) life is sinful. Go read the parable of the
Good Samaritan, it was also about bigotry and discrimination.You are
not the judge, you were even commanded to not judge but to leave it up to your
god. You are told to treat others correctly, regardless of how they're
living (and whether or not you approve). If you won't even do that, can
you honestly call yourself a true believer?
@RanchCongratulations on reading the Bible in two languages, you
must feel pretty knowledgeable about the word of God. I appreciate your concern
about my belief system and whether or not I meet the definition of
"Christian" according to your understanding of LDS doctrine. Obviously
we disagree, and nothing I say can persuade you to change your opinion (and your
arguments don't change my opinion either). Hope you have a good day.
Elder Holland's statement illustrates the fatal flaw of democracy: it
assumes certain things on the part of the general public that aren't
reasonable to assume. Because people don't behave as proponents of
"democracy" naively expect them to, democracy ends up being more often
tyranny of the majority than whatever egalitarian, utopian system democrats
expect it to be. The LDS Church is a global church, with most
members residing outside the U.S., so it's arrogant to presume Elder
Holland's words are intended for an American audience. However, it's
been established as official doctrine that the U.S. Constitution is
divinely-inspired, designed to permit the Restoration of the Gospel. Religious
liberty is an integral and indispensable part of God's plan. However, the
Constitution created not a "democracy", but a republic--one where
minority rights would be protected from the threat of mob rule. The trend
towards greater democracy is precisely the cause of the problems that Elder
Holland laments in this article. In order to secure our liberty, we must move
away from democracy, and back towards the republican form of government that God
and the Founding Fathers intended for us to have.
If we are ultimately threatened to be fined for not marrying gays in the temple,
etc., we would need to adopt the example of the Dutch. I was told by a Dutch
friend that ALL couples who want to get married in the Netherlands MUST be
married civilly FIRST. Then, the couples can go off to their church of choice to
get married thereafter. This effectively circumvents the possibility of
You know morpunkt, there is no reason Mormons couldn't adopt that policy
themselves. It's all ready practiced in special exclusive circumstances.
It would not only solve the whole "you can't tell me who
can get married in the temple" issue but it would also stop the horrific
practice of separating and dividing families as children get married in the
temple and parents are denied access to their child's wedding.
"....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,"______________________________A hope, yes but not a certainty. The Lockean basis for democracy is that the
right to govern should come from the consent of the governed. Democracy means
trust without guarantee of results.
With the number of names of ancient foreign origin for whom work has been done
in the Temples, I can only imagine that somewhere along the line two people of
the same sex have been "sealed".What is stopping someone
from having two same-sex ancestors sealed in an LDS temple today?
RE: Ranch, “Jesus commanded you: "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you". That is such a simple concept;” Jesus,
“You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal,
you shall not give false testimony, 1honor your father and mother…Mt
17:18-19),and Paul, Honor your Father and
Mother=(*mētēr)”[not Mothers or significant Others],which is the
first commandment with a promise. (Ephesians 6:2,3).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. *Greek, feminine noun(singular), a mother
@RanchI’m glad you brought up “Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you.” Keep that phrase in mind as I say that for
millions (if not billions) of people around the world, the institution of
marriage is sacred. And I don’t just mean “sacred” in Mormon
lingo, I mean that it is a time-tested, revered, and honored institution. As
you think about “do unto others…” please imagine the hurt we
feel when you demand that the definition of marriage be changed to mean
something that it simply doesn’t mean. You could accept the word
“union” and have all the legal privileges associated with marriage
applied to a union (compromise!), but that just isn’t good enough. You
insist on altering the definition of an institution we have held sacred for
thousands of years. You may not believe in the Bible, but maybe the
"....You could accept the word “union” and have all the legal
privileges associated with marriage applied to a union (compromise!)"____________________________I suspect that many married couples
would not go for that as a 'compromise' if it meant that in turn their
own spousal relation would henceforth be officially recorded simply as a legal
None of what Holland said matters, because after all, it is just his opinion.
@RanchHand"Bigotry and discrimination, sir, are not
"good" over evil. Religious freedom applies to every single American
citizen, not just the ones you approve of"Just what does that
mean - what bigotry, what discrimination? Sounds like you have an agenda - why
is it not above the table?
After reading many posts here, it appears lots of people are tying freedom of
religion exclusively to the issue of same-sex marriage. Of course, that is
understandable as SSM is the hot button issue of our time, but freedom of
religion is so much more than one issue.Example - I find it
interesting how many individuals scream and shout about the separation of church
and state whenever the LDS Church states a position on any issue, but when other
churches hold rallies and lobby in support of Obamacare, living wages, greater
environmental laws or against the death penalty, the people who were screaming
before about separation of church and state suddenly fall silent. The Message - Churches can not engage in political matters unless we agree
with said politics. Another Example - More and more we’ve
been hearing about the problem of bullying in schools, in the workplace or
online, but while society preaches tolerance, understanding and compassion, it
still continues to perpetuate nasty, negative and even hurtful stereotypes
against people of specific religious faiths. The Message - Tolerance
and compassion should be shown to all, unless we feel your group is not entitled
Ranch: Jesus also called the pharisees hypocrites and whited sepelchres. This
seems very applicable to those who take an eternal sacred covenant like marriage
between a man and a women and turn it into the exact opposite of what God
intended. Jesus loved the Pharisees, but didn't shy away from telling them
how corrupt and distorted their view of religion and God's word had become.
Jesus wouldn't be into political correctness, which is why its a pretty
good idea to stand up for what he said and live the way he lived. He
doesn't condone gay marriage.