Comments about ‘Ad campaign targets proposed Utah nondiscrimination law’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013 7:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
North Salt Lake, UT

What's funny is that after the way the Federal government forced gay marriage on Utah today this proposed law is deader than a doornail. Like old Marley himself.

No politician outside of liberal bastions of Park City and the east bench would dare vote for it now.

Potsdam, 00

AZKID said in his/her comment ...Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent...If you don't get it, Google it.

Three words: Camel. Nose. Tent.
Are these words off topics, if being understood that the slower the move the less likely people going to get upset. If this goes on we may count the results stated in Lamentations of the Old Testament. This is a matter of intelligence to read it !

"How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed! the stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street.

The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter!

For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. (chapter 4)

Can we learn a lesson from that regarding the new approach for non-discimination laws ?
Are we wearing out the meaning of greater laws by introducing smaller rules all the time ?

Salt Lake City, UT

Because "Utahans bend over backwards to be kind and accepting and caring of everyone" is a reason for a law that says we have to bend over backwards to be kind and accepting and caring of everyone. EVERYONE she said it. I think these people do not have enough to do in life, working to make it better than making allot noise, worrying about OTHER people making their life better .Better than WHAT?? Will a nondiscrimination law protect ME or THEM it seems somebody does not want us to get along as it is. If nobody wanted to be better than or have more than most people few people would feel "discriminated" against...IMHO

Salt Lake City, UT


"If even the church could support it, why can't you?"

Only the First Presidency, in unanimous agreement with the Quorum of the Twelve, has a right to speak in official behalf of the LDS Church in support of NEW Church doctrine, policy, or posture. Church endorsement of a non-discrimination law easily qualifies as "new." Handbook 2, 21.1.29, D&C 107.

The statement which Michael Otterson read to the Salt Lake City Council in supposed official Church support of that city's non-discrimination ordinance did NOT carry the required, express imprimatur of the First Presidency. In fact, it carried no name nor signature nor name of any priesthood office at all. And Otterson himself is NOT a Priesthood Authority. He merely is a church employee. Indeed Otterson read his statement in the FIRST PERSON.

Otterson's statement was, therefore, utterly null and void as an AUTHORITATIVE utterance of official LDS Church policy and posture and should be REJECTED as such.

Authority matters in LDS doctrine. Latter-Day Saints are given various keys for ascertaining and authenticating required authority.

Otterson's statement utterly fail these tests. Indeed his very appearance at the City Council meeting was a complete and utter sham.

to comment

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