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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Here, UT

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.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ


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.

Here, UT

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 you.

Salt Lake City, UT

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).

Chandler, AZ

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!

Sandy, UT

"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 "freedom".

Sandy, UT

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.

Sandy, UT

@ Truthseeker

At 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.


"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.

Huntsville, UT


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?

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

"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?

Huntsville, UT

@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?

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ


Congratulations 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.

Glendora, CA

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 ridiculous litigation.

salt lake city, utah

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.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"....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.

Provo, UT

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?

layton, UT

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

Anytown, KY


I’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 Golden Rule?

to comment

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