Orson Scott Card: In the Village: Defining, declaring our faith

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    May 21, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    To Idaho Coug: Now you understand why I have constantly stood with the testimony I have that the beliefs and knowledge. Some try to put it all in a little nutshell. Remember that President David O McKay prior to his death in the upper room of the Salt Lake Temple stated: "Only now am I beginning to understand the ordinances of the Temple." Prophets are not infallable though some would make them out to be. Some have very strong opinions and some very strong inclinations as to what is right and wrong. Still they are men who do make mistakes, say things out of context or even get it partially wrong. Joseph Smith has said that he received many revelations he was not permitted to write or tell about. He wasn't the right Prophet to bring that forth. We study the teachings of the Prophets just as we study the teachings of the Prophets of Old. As Nephi states we liken the scriptures unto ourselves. What was said over the pulpit 150 years ago has little concern for what is said today but their teachings has eternal perpectives.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    May 21, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    %JoeJoe & Idaho Coug: I feel you have put the concern of having to accept and believing in the core values of Mormonism in easy to understand percpective. But what normal mind could or would totally believe all those things without some question or doubt. They are almost as difficult to believe as other church's believe in transubstantiation of the aeucharist. The worlds greatest minds have done many of their great works and writings because of their doubts and questions. Even more fanatic are those who not only believe, but think and claim that they do know; and try to infuence others to accept that they do know.. I believe too many of these kind of people in the world make for a very dangerous place. Perhaps the Mormon church should ease up a little on the know requirement. I remember hearing one time that the church is a hospital for the sick and not a museum for the saints.

  • JoJoe SLC, UT
    May 20, 2011 3:49 p.m.

    Idaho Coug: Exactly! I'm glad you get this. Because I really feel there is lots of room in the LDS Church for things that aren't core doctrine related.

    Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Meat-Eater, Vegetarian, Tree-Hugger, and yes, I suppose even Tea-party-ers... :) are all welcome... no worries. Marginal points of doctrine are really left up to members to figure out on their own, and I love that.

    So I'm with Mr. Card. I really don't think there are different "flavors" of Mormonism. You either believe in the core doctrines or you don't. That doesn't mean after that there isn't huge variety in the ideas and philosophies we all hold about politics, etc. I cherish the core doctrine unity we have and equally cherish the diversity we have after that.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 20, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    JoJoe - you (and this article) have made me think hard about something. Just how long can someone doubt some of the core fundamental aspects of Mormonism and still attend and hang on to the idea that they are more than just Mormon in name?

    For example, just how long can someone hang to their identity of an active Mormon if they doubt the First Vision, the restoration of the Priesthood, the truthfullness (including historicity) of the Book of Mormon, the truthfullness of other modern scripture (PofGP, D&C), the reality of a living Prophet who communicates God's will - basically that Joseph Smith restored the true Church and Gospel?

    There are some things that even the most active, supportive members can disagree over. But it is tough to doubt the things I listed above and remain in the Church in any real, spiritual, healthy way outside of just being there for social aspects.

    So maybe I am a flip-flopper myself. I regularly criticize people here who seem very rigid in what a Mormon should believe. But in reality, it is extremely tough to be an active Mormon without believing at least the core aspects of our faith.

  • JoJoe SLC, UT
    May 20, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    Idaho Coug: "..fortunately the leadership recognizes that many members are in and go through different stages of belief and that it can be a lifelong process..."

    Of course! You misunderstand, truly. I think all members fall into this boat, I certainly do.

    The point is, every member has at least some foundational beliefs and made commitment that identifies them as LDS. In Mr. Huntsman's case he grew up in the Church and served a mission.

    So the real issue, Mr. Card covers perfectly in his article. Is Mr. Huntsman truly having a crisis of faith and wondering, "Gosh, I'm so bewildered, I really don't know if I'm Mormon or not? I just can't figure it out? I might, or I might not be?!!" Or does he know exactly where he stands, and for political gain, not being forthright about what he believes. The latter seems far, far more likely, and that's what people are uptight about.

    This is not about a troubled soul trying to figure out his faith, which we all are, certainly. This is about a man denying his faith for political expediency.

  • Ender Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2011 1:06 p.m.

    Good for Mr. Card for lauding taking a stand. I truly do hope Mr. Huntsman takes the Moroni challange and prays to know if the Book of Mormon is true (if he hasn't already), assuming this response was genuine and not politically motivated. What's more, I hope that those of us who have received an answer stick by our convictions.

    Revelations 3:15-16 "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

  • JoJoe SLC, UT
    May 20, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    Brahmabull: "Just exactly what are the 'core doctrines' that you say are a 'must believe' in order for you to be mormon?" -- This is pretty easy to answer if you are a serious questioner. The author, Mr. Card, if you read the original article has a good take on this. If you want to be sarcastic and list fringe doctrines to make a point, fine, but core doctrine are fairly easy to outline.

    Absolutely everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe. Nobody in the LDS Church is going to ram anything down your throat. But this isn't the Unitarian Church. You don't believe in the LDS Godhead? You don't believe Joseph restored the Gospel? You don't believe we have a living prophet? You don't believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God? You start creating "your brand" of Mormonism and you aren't going to find yourself in the Church for very long. Do you really think otherwise??!!

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    May 20, 2011 12:35 p.m.

    Let's pretend Huntsman was not being politically expedient.

    So, he has doubts?

    He knows what he needs to do.

    Let's pretend he was being politically expedient.

    Houston, we have a problem...

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    @Independent Woman
    I guess I just don't see a controversy with LDS people being Democrat. Sure there are significantly less Democrats than Republicans in the LDS church but who cares? I've never witnessed anyone being looked down upon because they are Democrat. I think people blow it up cause they want to make it an issue, they want to create controversy. I know LDS Democrats and *gasp* I think they are good members.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    May 20, 2011 10:37 a.m.

    Jojoe - again I see why people who are unsure of their testimony end up leaving the church, it is because of comments made from people like you. You claim Huntsman threw his faith under the bus. How can you say he threw his faith under the bus? All he said is "tough to define" that is it. I guess being honest with himself has come at a huge price. I guess he should have just lied and said he is a full active mormon, right? He didn't slander mormonism, he didn't mention it's shady and edited history. He didnt attack the so-called "core doctrines" that change with the wind. So because he was being honest about his current beliefs, that is throwing his faith under the bus? Boy, I think some mormons really have their head in the sand. I know for the most part mormons are good people. There are a few though that make you wonder what their motives are - christ or themselves. I don't think the christian thing to do is to condemn anybody else for their PERSONAL beliefs. After all we all have different beliefs, even within the same religion.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    May 20, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    Jojoe - Just exactly what are the "core doctrines" that you say are a "must believe" in order for you to be mormon? Polygamy? Adam-god doctrine? The original word of wisdom(which allowed the use of beer)?

    You seem to think that one must have absolute knowledge to be a member of the church. I guarantee you that NOBODY has absolute knowledge that it is true. You may believe it with everything in you, but nobody knows. So lighten up and let each INDIVIDUAL decide what they believe and what they do not. Each person has their own way of relating with god. I, for one, am not a robot who accepts things blindly with no outside research of my own. That would be foolish.

    Doctor - I like your comment because it proves just how inconsistant mormon doctrine and theology really is. If core doctrines (polygamy, and men becoming gods, adam-god) can be taught, accepted and then dismissed by future prophets then it defeats the purpose of a prophet. Many mormons will use the "current prophet is the only one that counts" defense. If that is the case, then we have no doctrine, they don't teach doctrine anymore.

  • Independent Woman West Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2011 10:06 a.m.

    To Belching Cow, I believe LDS Liberal was being a little tongue-in-cheek with his comments.

    However, I came from a long line of Democrats, and know how that very idea is treated by the Republican Mormon majority in Utah. LDS Liberal wasn't far from the truth there. If you're a Mormon you're supposed to be a Republican. It's not asked in the temple recommend interview-yet, but it is almost harder to say "I'm a Democrat" than "I know the Church is true." And there was a time when Church members were mainly Democrats. Granted it was decades ago, but it did happen.

    As far as Card is concerned, I believe that he has explained his opinion very well, but as has been said, it is only his opinion. I personally know many cultural Mormons and many people who have their doubts. I, for one. have had numerous questions, but I don't vocalize many of them. I do, however, put myself firmly in the Mormon camp.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 20, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    JoJoe said, "I agree with his bold statements. There are no cultural Mormons... those who define themselves as such aren't Mormon, sorry... you either believe the core doctrines or you don't, simple as that."

    Thankfully, you will never hear a comment like that from the Prophet or a GA today. The Church knows that at very best half of the announced 13 million actively participate. A comment like that would weed active, participating Mormons down to the 2 million range. I'm sure some members would be fine with that but fortunately the leadership recognizes that many members are in and go through different stages of belief and that it can be a lifelong process for some. Of course comments on blogs and in local ward meetings often differ from what we hear from SLC leadership - myself included.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2011 8:41 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal
    "Good read,
    but you do realize letting Utah Mormons know you are a Democrat atuomatically makes you a Jack-mormon.
    Political affiliation takes presidence over any personal religous conviction, faith or conduct of ones character here in Utah."

    Are you really LDS? I have my doubts cause you don't seem to know much about LDS people. I personally don't know a single LDS person who considers Democrats Jack-mormons. And I know a ton of LDS people. I also don't know a single LDS person where political affiliation takes presidence over personal religious conviction. Kind of strange that my experience as an LDS person is so different from yours.

    BTW, very nice article Mr. Card.

  • patjan Flower Mound, TX
    May 20, 2011 8:22 a.m.

    To Just-a-fan,

    Being from Utah, I understand your comments. However, the world outside of Utah is very different and especially in the south it is polar opposite. There are some people who would not hire Mormons based on the lies and prejudices that are here. Not all people here are that way, but many are. In Utah (and surrounding states) people are surrounded by Mormons and thus cannot believe the lies that are spread. But in the south, lies abound and they are very ignorant about Mormons. I never would have believed it if I hadn't lived here for a long time. This makes our duty here much more important to live in such a way as to let people see clearly who we are.

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    May 20, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    A true "flip-flopper" will change his position based on the room he's in. It will change multiple times, or play word games to keep his answers vague. I heard about someone who addressed a group in Detroit tell them he drove big American vehicles. The next week he addressed an environmental group who asked about the SUV he drove, and he responded that it wasn't registered to him and he didn't use it much. That's flip-flopping.

    In politics, there is a lot of give and take, negotiation and trading that go on, especially at higher levels of government, in order for a politician to get his most important objectives done. Sometimes they have to trade something for it. If Huntsman is trading his faith for broader political support, I have a problem with that.

    I don't live in Utah, and I don't follow politics there closely, so I don't know how Huntsman has been portraying his beliefs. It sounds like Card has the impression Huntsman has been giving the impression of being a firm believer, and now comes out saying he really isn't. That shows lack of integrity.

  • just-a-fan Bountiful, UT
    May 20, 2011 5:24 a.m.

    So Card doesn't get hired because he's a Mormon? Not buying that one. Perhaps he is not hired due to other, more realistic reasons, like some people actually do not like him nor his work. I agreed with a lot of this article but come on, black listed in education for being a Mormon? There are Mormons teaching hi great schools like Yale who are Mormon. I find such a comment pretty arrogant and perhaps that's what is turning people off. It does me. Card is an exceptional writer and I even think a good guy to have out there representing Mormons, but seriously, look around at how many Mormons work in colleges in areas where they too have influences on people and I think it will show Card is way off on that idea.

  • ajperky Riverton, Utah
    May 19, 2011 10:12 p.m.

    Donn, There is nothing wrong with a politian changing their position, as long as they don't deny the change or previous stance. Your quote from Romney's September Iowa debate show Romney's integrity about his change in position. This is not a falt, and infact shows growth and insight.

  • sg newhall, CA
    May 19, 2011 9:54 p.m.

    Well, it appears that mr card is passing judgment. What right does he or anyone have to determine whether or not someone has lost their faith. Perhaps the alleged offender's faith has stretched beyond the box of Moronism? Truth does not exist within the confines of Mormon doctrine. If he is referring to Huntsman, again, I don't belief Mr. Card has the right to do so. Naturally, he has his opinion, but that's all it is...his opinion. He should keep it closer to his vest. Let us, the voters, decide; don't make the decision for us. It is unfortunate that when a member of the flock moves in another direction than the whole, that the whole appears to be more critical and move further away from the accused than to continue loving that individual.

  • JoJoe SLC, UT
    May 19, 2011 5:52 p.m.

    Great article by Mr. Card. Excellent points.

    I agree with his bold statements. There are no cultural Mormons... those who define themselves as such aren't Mormon, sorry... you either believe the core doctrines or you don't, simple as that.

    Be a Democrat-leftwing-nut. Be a Tea-party-psycho. Be a meat-eating cowboy or a tree-hugging vegan. Drink Coke... fine. But you DON'T deny the faith.

    I applaud Mr. Card for his integrity and willingness to stand by his faith no matter what the cost. I don't care for Romney's politics either, but deeply admire him for his willingness to stand by his faith and loved his speech on the topic. Mr. Huntsman's willingness to throw his faith under the bus for political gain is so dishonorable... I actually really feel sorry for him and fear for him.

  • donn layton, UT
    May 19, 2011 4:54 p.m.

    Ajperky said,Romney has not "flip flopped" on abortion. He has always been pro-life personally? Wrong, he has"flip flopped" changed his position.

    Its true that both Huckabee and Romney oppose abortion--now. But Huckabee was pro-life while he was governor. Romney, not so much. Dont take our word for it. Heres Romney at a September debate in Iowa: I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. Ive said that time and time again. Ive changed my position.
    We dont begrudge Romney the right to change his mind, and hes been open about the fact that his position has changed. But many Iowa voters may still be unaware of that, and this ad implies that . Source Ad Watch of 2007 campaign ad, The Record Dec 13, 2007.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    May 19, 2011 4:37 p.m.

    Bold article, however------ the truth is there were varying degrees even 150 years ago: some chewed tobacco, some had tempers, few read the Book of Mormon in early LDS history, few were rich, most were poor, few were educated and some owned nothing----and we all know there are varying degrees of worthiness going back since the beginning of time. If we are a missionary-believing faith, and we are, then we open the doors to all---and Huntsman's approach may be more similiar to the Apostle Paul than Brother Card's. Since both major political parties, in my view, will both soon accept gay marriage (to appease under 30 vote), LDS people will not be dividing themselves as much, politically, in the future. We will soon be one again.

  • Lasvegaspam Henderson, NV
    May 19, 2011 4:32 p.m.

    LDS Lib: As LDS, we WILL vote for the republicans until the republican party stops actually representing us, just as has occurred with the democrat party. Ronald Reagan said it best, "I didn't leave the democrat party, it left me". Please read Zell Miller's book, "A national party no more" and familiarize yourself with the democrat party of today.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 19, 2011 3:45 p.m.

    Good read,
    but you do realize letting Utah Mormons know you are a Democrat atuomatically makes you a Jack-mormon.

    Political affiliation takes presidence over any personal religous conviction, faith or conduct of ones character here in Utah.

    They will always vote for the "R", period.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    May 19, 2011 3:27 p.m.

    So what exactly are Card's points here, because he seems to be all over the place. Is Huntsman just selling out because it is politically expedient? Is that really what he is trying to suggest? "Yes, please take my soul Satan on condition that I get at least four years as POTUS". My guess is that Huntsman really doesn't believe, yet he is trying to delicately balance that against his Mormon family, friends, and peers. Is it because he is trying to manipulate, or just be diplomatic? Apparently Card has this one figured out. I wonder though, if Huntsman had taken a stand, as Card demands, and cited objection to the Church, challenging the authority of leaders, their involvement in Prop 8, the absurdity of their history, etc - would Card have written a different article commending Huntsmans integrity? My guess it no, he would have written a scathing rebuke suggesting that Huntsman should have been more diplomatic and less vocal on his objections. Huntsman is in a catch-22 with Mormons.

    When I hear Huntsman remarks "it's tough to define", I hear him saying "I'd rather not discuss it".

  • Saganist West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    yarrlydarb, of course you and Card are both welcome to your opinions. Didn't I say that explicitly in my comment?

    I simply have a problem with Card's authoritative pronouncement that "there are no cultural Mormons". My disagreement is based on the fact that I know several people who in fact describe themselves that way. Perhaps you dispute the term or deny their existence, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

    This is my point of view, not a pronouncement. I not only expect your disagreement, but in fact welcome it. Life would be so boring if we all agreed on everything.

  • Doctor Tucson, AZ
    May 19, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    Orson could have written this about Hinckley's statement on Larry King, "I don't know that we teach that."

  • sgerbil Bella Vista, AR
    May 19, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    If Huntsman is not sure about his spirituality then perhaps his time would be better spent soul searching then running for president. He needs to figure himself out before he tries to figure this complex country out.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 19, 2011 1:03 p.m.

    You make a good point Jeff. The ramifications for declaring your absolute belief or doubts can be different depending upon your location and circumstances.

    I do think there needs to be more understanding and acceptance for those with honest doubts. It can be a very difficult experience for a member within an active LDS family and particularly for one living in the Phoenix to S. Idaho area. It really can be easier to say you believe and put on the happy face. The ramifications for doing otherwise can have both personal and professional ramifications and that should not be the case. Just as those who profess their absolute belief should be able to do so without any negative ramifications.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    May 19, 2011 12:52 p.m.

    I knew someone whose Evangelical Christian high school removed the works of Orson Scott Card from the library on learning they would have Mormon students and deciding to purge any added Mormon influences from their campus.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    May 19, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    @ Idaho Coug: I would like to suggest respectfully that, while in Utah and Southern Idaho it may take a certain amount of courage to admit that one has doubts about the Church, in other parts of the world the opposite is true, and that is what Card is suggesting. In California, now (for example), there are a great many personal costs that can come from openly declaring allegiance to the Church. Those who were threatened, who lost their jobs, and who had their homes and meetinghouses vandalized after Prop 8 can attest to that.

    More than once, in other parts of the world, contemporary members of the Church have been threatened with violence because of their Church membership. Missionaries who keep that information from their mothers would likely be willing to tell you if you asked them.

    Card does not live in the Rocky Mountains, so he has the broader picture that comes from being from somewhere else. He likely knows from personal observation that, outside "Zion," there are few "cultural Mormons" because there is little cultural expectation for them to pretend to membership.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    May 19, 2011 11:11 a.m.

    Say ... what? to you too, Saganist.

    How is it that you and Mr. Rockwell get to make such definitions, but Mr. Card does not?

    Neither of you make any sense ... if I may be allowed my opinion.

    Or am I, too, disallowed my decisions and opinions?

    Such silliness.

  • ajperky Riverton, Utah
    May 19, 2011 11:04 a.m.

    Well said, Orson. Are you sure you don't want to run for President?

    I really like what you said about Romney, "a man of solid convictions, who does not temper his core beliefs according to the prevailing political winds (though he does change his mind about specific political issues, as all of us should, whenever we learn better)."

    Romney has not "flip flopped" on abortion. He has always been pro-life personally. No one can say he has flopped back to being pro-abortion (I hate the term pro-choice, because the choice was to put themselves in a position to become pregnant). Romney is the right man to get things done in Washington. He knows how to work with all to get positive results. Let's not let a cliche like "flip flop" keep him from getting the job done.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    May 19, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    I truly appreciate and respect Mr. Card's testimony and his courage to stand behind it at all times and in all places.

    What I do not understand, however, is the seeming inability for some members to respect that many other members are simply unsure, have doubts, and are in the process of working through what they believe. There appears to be a real line being drawn in the sand. Either you are with us - with no questions, doubts or uncertainities whatsoever - or you are not.

    Mr. Card and others speak of the courage it takes to take a firm, open, unequivical stand for the church. And I truly respect those who do. But, Mr. Card, people no longer ride into camp with a gun to our heads. The reality today is that it takes more courage for a lifelong member to admit doubt and uncertainty in our LDS culture.

    I suggest that it is actually easier for a Mormon to proclaim absolute belief even if he or she harbors real doubts than it is to acknowledge the real doubts and uncertainties. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman is the one who has shown real courage and honesty.

  • McFarland Clovis, Ca
    May 19, 2011 10:54 a.m.

    I loved this article. I wholeheartedly agree. There was another article published yesterday about Huntsmans response which argued in support of Mr. Huntsman. I would love for the author of that article to read this one and see how she feels then about her article and position on this matter. I for one feel that the scriptures show us the way to act in this respect and that it is very clear on the subject as Brother Card illustrated. Thank you Brother Card... I have always loved your books and articles on Desert News... I think they should put this one on the home page as they did the one from yesterday by the girl from Provo.

  • Saganist West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    Greg is saying that yes, there is such a thing as a cultural Mormon. Orson Scott Card is welcome to his opinion, but he does not get to decide how others define their relationship to Mormonism.

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    May 19, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    To Mr. Greg Rockwell:

    Say, ... what?

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2011 9:51 a.m.


  • Greg Rockwell Draper, UT
    May 19, 2011 9:45 a.m.

    Thankfully, Mr. Card, you don't get to define what it MEANS to be MORMON. And for many people, what it means to be Mormon has to do with culture, family, heritage, etc. while (shockingly) having very little to do with literal belief that the Church is God's one true organization on the Earth. Mr. Card, you ought to be an intelligent enough person to realize that trying to create a simplistic pigeonhole for how people define their complex relationships to complex organizations is not effective, helpful, or accurate. My (politically insignificant) relationship to Mormonism is complex and nuanced (and sometimes difficult); I would like to extend the same privilege to Mr. Huntsman.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 19, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    What if, just what if, your convictions are WRONG?

    What then?

  • gnrl39 South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Thank you Brother Card, You put in words what I have been thinking over the past few days but couldn't articulate like you did.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    Very well articulated Orson, especially after reading all the kudos Jon Huntsman has been receiving for his very offbeat answer.

  • Full-on double rainbow Bluffdale, UT
    May 19, 2011 8:58 a.m.

    Why is it only ok to be "hot or cold, yes or no, in or out, up or down?" Heaven forbid that anyone is ambivalent about such an important topic as religion or anything for that matter. We already know the Lords feelings about people who are lukewarm. It is nice that Mr. Card thinks its ok to lose faith because in my experience most Mormons think that losing faith is the worst/dumbest thing you could ever do. So its ok to lose faith but dont be hostile to the church. What does it mean to be hostile to the church? Some of the church's own history seems hostile to developing/maintaining faith. Is talking about percieved problems with the church/BOM etc being "hostile" to the church?

    I would like to say that I am a fan of Mr. Cards fiction.

  • donn layton, UT
    May 19, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    Romney a man of solid convictions, who does not temper his core beliefs according to the prevailing political winds?
    Flip Flop: #1. Abortion: In October 2002, campaigning for governorship of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would preserve and protect a womans right to choose. He now describes himself as opposing abortion.

    The right to life is grounded in morality and there can be no middle-ground especially for Christians. For you created my inmost being you knit me together in my mothers womb, praise you because I am fearfully and wonderful made, your works are wonderful I know that full well.(Psalm 139:13,14)

  • yarrlydarb Ogden, UT
    May 19, 2011 8:29 a.m.

    Absolutely beautifully put! I admire and respect what you say and am 100% supportive of your personal stand. Without integrity, man is nothing for he cannot be trusted when he speaks.

    In my opinion, one statement you made points most clearly to your personal integrity. You said, "I'm a Democrat myself, so I won't be voting in the Republican primaries."

    It's no secret that a large majority of Church members support the Republican party, so, for a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to state in open forum that he supports "the other party" when addressing his words mostly to Mormons, tells me that he is indeed a person of character and merits admiration.

    Thank you again for putting into words what I believe is the essence of integrity.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    May 19, 2011 8:12 a.m.

    It seems Mr. Card is a good man who would prefer to hear what he wants to hear rather than listen to the truth of what another good man honestly states. Pehaps Mr. Card dosen't fully understand the Mormon teahing of free agency and honesty and the equal access to God's (if He is) enlightment.

  • patjan Flower Mound, TX
    May 19, 2011 7:51 a.m.

    Way to go Orson Scott Card. You hit it right on. Standing as a witness in all places is the central theme in Young Womens and Relief Society. A true disciple is a disciple all of the time. Not when it is convenient. He is devoted to the Lord regardless of the cost. Thank you.