Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 7 2013 10:01 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DLF
GLENDALE, UT

ZEEP is right. Marriage is a state issue, a power retained by the states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment -- but Senators Hatch and Reid would know nothing about that. Senator Lee alone seems to honor his constitutional oath.

bobdc6
park city, UT

Marriage, as addressed in the Senate, is a creature of the state, not the church. Only the state can grant the church (or anyone else) the power to marry, only the state can enforce the laws of marriage, only the state can grant the power of divorce, which resides in the courts, not the church (or anyone else). It's a matter of equal rights under the law and does not affect church doctrine at all.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "TMR" how have the church's views changed? From the very beginning the LDS church taught its members to treat others kindly and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That was taught 100 years ago, and is still taught the same now.

To "Wastintime" to answer your question, you would be married to both. So you know, the church still believes in the doctrine of plural marriage.

To "Open Minded Mormon" I hate to tell you this but 20 years ago I read in the LDS church's handbook of instruction that gay members were to be welcomed into church, and were to abide by the same standards as all other members. There were no restrictions on going to the temple, except in cases where they decided to dress as the opposite gender. They are only excommunicated if they act on their urges.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Atl134: Perhaps the light might be opening a mind or two. There is an ocean of difference between 'state tyranny' and federal tyranny. Since I begin with the supposition that government is 'evil at best'(I'm in good company if you count our Founding Fathers as proof), then federal tyranny is much worse than state tyranny. At least at the state level I can go meet with the scoundrels and vote them out of office. I can also have a better chance to educate the 47 million slaves of the Republican and Democratic party elite that parlay ignorance as a tool to enslave. Liberty has a way of staying around even when Democrats and Republicans want it extinguished. No law at the federal or state level is going to make any difference when virtue and morality have no root. So, rather than going through these illusory issues of gay marriage and the like, independent minded people focus on keeping the federal government out of everything that it has no right interfering with and which in the end destroy liberty for everyone. People came to America for one reason, to get away from those who don't understand liberty.

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

Mormons are locked into following their leaders, as are Catholics, JWs and other leader-lead groups. Otherwise, the disaffected sn leave. Whether a local imam, rabbi, or prophet, followers adhere to their spiritual authorities.

Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and only those Words "never change ". All the leader-led groups have redefined and/or reversed Biblical and/or their previous doctrines. For example you have Vatican II, LDS 1890/1978/1991, and the Watchtower renunciations of all of their 1914-17 prophecies. Strict Bible-Only believers never have to deal with reversal fall-out. If they disagree with the Bible, they start their own group... (just as JSmith, CTRussel, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, et al, did.)

The point: Hope for change or reversal springs eternal in the heart of the extra-Biblical followers. Evangicals just go to Sola Scriptura.

In the words of (atheist) Pen Gillette to (liberal Catholic) Piers Morgan, if you don't agree with your professed leader's position, leave the organization. Why do you try to change his decisions? Ex cathedra or "God told me" is pretty definitive.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

OnlytheCroass,

"Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and only those Words "never change "."
_____________________________

My experience with Protestants is that they are as wide ranging in their views as are any other group. And all it takes is one glance at these DN discussions to see that Mormons are not all of one mind either. Let's face it. These worn out old labels just don't mean as much as they may have at one time.

Mack2828
Ft Thomas, KY

I wish as a church we weren't so obsessed with worrying about what the world thinks of us. I'm thinking of all of the PR and news releases and spokesmen/spokeswomen etc etc.
Throughout the scriptures the prophets and other believers just boldly proclaimed the truth even if it meant harm being inflicted on them or the church.
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like now days the church is trying to hard to serve the Lord without offending the devil.
As an example, I seriously doubt that this post will see the light of day. It will likely be rejected because it might detract from the public image of the church.

Filo Doughboy
Bakersfield, CA

Don't rail on the Nev. senator! Harry Reid is just a product of post-1890 Mormonism. Mormonism is a fluid work-in-progress, with the splinter groups opting for the smorgasbord menu. Neither FLDS, RLDS or LDS shall ever merge.

Today's "in stone" can be tomorrow's "former teachings". When your foundation can shift with each new leader, it's just a waiting game for the reversal hopefuls. Reid is just a MINO- a Mormon in name only. He could easily start his own RLDS group- Reid LDS. He just hasn't figured out that LDS know he only retains his faux membership for political gain.

Wait, wait for it... A Reidism is forming on the horizon. But you'll have to pass it before you read it or you'll never understand it. Harry knows that sufficient public pressure causes strange reversals for the patient hopefuls.

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

The LDS Church is dodging Reid's comment by making an unrelated yet true statement. Sure, the LDS Church hasn't changed it's stance on gay marriage, but it has changed it's attitude and philosophy regarding sexual orientation. Why does the LDS Church issue a statement that doesn't directly address Reid's comment. Reid didn't say anything about the Church changing it's position on traditional marriage.

And by the way, the LDS Church has changed it's position on traditional marriage or they decided to embrace traditional marriage. Polygamy is obviously not about one man married to one woman.

Ranch
Here, UT

@happy2bhere;

Your concerns could easily be addressed by the LDS church implementing a policy that every couple marries first in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace for instance, or your bishop) and then they go through the temple for their sealing (they already do this in many European countries - per the laws). If they had a like policy here, then the church's ceremony wouldn't even be part of the discussion.

@Redshirt1701;

Here's how: 100 years ago it was one man, many women in the LDS church - that is most definitely NOT one-man/one-woman.

It sure appears that a lot of Mormons on this thread are bearing false witness against Senator Reid.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Nowhere in Harry Reid's statement does he use the word "doctrine."
He was speaking in the context of anti-discrimination in employment and housing.
He has a mixed record on gay issues.

Church leaders in the past suggested homosexuality was a "choice." Others suggested/believed homosexuality could be "cured."
Has the LDS position changed on those views? If so, then the LDS Church's position on homosexuality has evolved, as it should.

From the SL Tribune, Feb 2013:

"Attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in quiet discussions with leaders of Utah’s gay and lesbian community, trying to hammer out language for a statewide ban on housing and employment discrimination that the church could support."

Lastly, the Church (and everybody) ought to drop the " traditional marriage" moniker. Marriage has taken different forms throughout history--including the practice of polygamy-- which the majority of industrialized countries view as outside the norms.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

I'm LDS, and, like Senator Reid, I see nothing in our doctrine that supports discrimination in employment such as ENDA addresses. I further don't know why anyone would. This bill should be so easy to vote for, I don't see what the problem is.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

No question the church has reached out to gays more than ever before in the past 5 years. Homosexual sex is still a sin and will forever be a sin so that hasn't changed but the effort by the church to reach out and make welcome homosexuals as members is something that elder Holland and Oaks have both spoke openly about. Homosexual marriage will forever be forbidden in the church simply because it destroys the family unit and core relationships.

Anti-Nephi-Lehi
Boise, ID

It's always interesting to me to read people's views/hopes that the Church of Jesus Christ will somehow swing into "modern thinking" regarding social issues such as marriage. The church is Christ's and Christ's alone and therefore will not and can not be made to change stances on such topics with societal winds of change - or 'growth' as Senator Reid puts it.

Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is God's plan and CANNOT be modified simply because its politically correct to do so or because it would make some people feel better. And hoping that God's plan will for some reason change in our day and age more to the liking of some of His children is nonsensical.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever - as is His Plan of Happiness for all of us.

AZguy
Phoenix, AZ

I think Harry is right on; at least I hope so. It is true for me and I hope for my fellow Latter Day Saints as well.

I personally feel I am more accepting of varying lifestyles than I was in years past. Marrying a democrat helped, but I would like to think that I have learned to be more accepting as I have asked for the same from others. All humans deserve kindness and respect, and can believe or live how they choose. I expect the same consideration.

tylert73
West Valley, UT

Mr. Smitty- Reid's comment mentioned the church in reference to "gay rights." That is a blanket statement, nothing specific about this legislation. What is the gay rights fight? GAY MARRIAGE! So the response was on target. Attitudes and perceptions definetely have changed among the members of the church, and even it's leaders. But the goal of gay activists is to have gay marriage accross the board. So when gay rights is brought up, it is appropriate cut it off at the pass and make it know that although understanding and tolerance is higher among church memers, our stance is still the same.
Also, the polygamy and gay marriage are totally different. Brigham Young had many wives, that bore many children. How many children can gay couples bear?

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Church Member said, “Are you sure his views haven't changed?? How do you know.”

When we ALL hear it from the living prophet, then you will know His views have changed. Until then, nothing has changed. That is how I know and I am sure that is how @Play-by-the-Rules knows it has NOT changed.

@Open Minded Mormon,

Contrary to what you stated, as Governor, Mitt Romney never signed any gay marriage into law – there never was such a bill. It was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that made it the law of the Commonwealth per judicial decree - not because Governor Romney signed a piece of paper.

@banderson said, “…This is a states rights issue.”

No, it is not when it relates to discrimination in the workplace – that is a federal issue and has already been adjudicated before the U.S. Supreme Court. This is all about passage of a law regarding discrimination in the workplace – not about gay marriage/relationships.

Ranch
Here, UT

@tylert73;

How many children can an infertile couple bear? How many children can an elderly couple bear? How many children can a man or woman who has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy bear?

None, yet each of these groups can marry. Gays are "similary situated".

@Anti-Nephi-Lehi;

"God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" until he changes his mind. Example: "Thou shalt not kill, steal or covet, except I command you to kill the Caananites so you can steal their land which you covet".

God is irrelevant to this discussion. We are NOT a theocracy.

Trainman
Ivins, UT

Harry Reid and Orin Hatch are so completely out of touch with what is going on, they don't even know the policy of their own church. All one had to do is listen to the talks at General Conference last month to get the message. The church's policy is marriage between a man and a woman. That's it.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

vance, Let's see, those roads you drive on? They don't just belong to you. And the utilities you'll use were there before you got there, and the payments are not only yours, but some of it is shared. If there's a fire, or you need any assistance, those cops or ambulances will be partly funded by the local government. And if you buy the property, you'll finance it and insure it--more businesses and government, and if not, you'll lease. You'll also insure the inventory. Shall I keep going? We haven't even hired anyone yet to begin the paperwork and employees, or even advertised (more labor) or opened the doors. Now do you understand, this business is financed by you, but money goes to many places, and you aren't even breaking even yet. It is not the same and yes, other people have an interest in it, including local and federal government agencies. So, yes, you do need to obey laws they set.

to comment

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