Clayton Christensen says he was misquoted, misrepresented regarding LDS Church, same-sex marriage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    Nov. 6, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    Who is this fella? Is he some sort of Mormon celebrity? Not sure why him being misquoted would be headline news.

  • EPoint Roy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    to mcclark: the biblical laws given in the Old Testament such as not wearing two different cloths, are explained in the Bible as done away with when Christ came to the earth, the law of Moses fulfilled in His coming. we seek to obey those commandments Jesus gave then, as best we can, being imperfect at it, but consistently trying makes us better. The New Testament gives multiple references to explain that homosexuality is forbidden. Are you really interested in knowing & following truth, or just being contrary? If its the former, then give credit and applaud those who are trying to live God's laws, to find happiness therein. God Bless You.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    Nov. 4, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    @Old But Not Stupid,
    "What would our society be like if everyone did it?"
    Are you planning on leaving your spouse for someone of your own sex? The point being not everybody's doing it. If you're worried about gay marriage causing the end of the human race, I really don't think you need to be.

  • @Charles not from utah, 00
    Nov. 2, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    it is impossible for homosexuality to be construed as equal to heterosexuality. It's a lie to claim otherwise.

    Sorry Baccus: but no homosexual couple is raising any child that conceived by homosexual behavior. It's impossible. Your twist of truth is actually what the homosexual movement is all about: distort, mislead, confuse the facts.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Nov. 1, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    The notion has been mentioned here that a person can't be a devout member of the church and at the same time, have their own opinions. Though not worded that way, the direct quote was, "you can't have it both ways".

    In truth, you can. I can have my own opinions, scouting, for instance, isn't my favorite subject in the church, but I support it and will have my boys participate when they reach that age. I can have my own thoughts, but I can also, and at the very same time, sustain church leaders, be obedient to the doctrine and so no and so forth.

    As a father responded to his daughter during an argument when she said, 'Am I not allowed to disagree with you? 'Disagree, yes, Disobey, no'.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    Nov. 1, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    Most in the LDS church (and our leaders) are as "ahead" as Brother Christensen, in that we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time now. We call it a "sign of the times". We have known for a long time that SSM would eventually become the law of the land. That doesn't make it right - or any less right to continue to live by The Family Proclamation and continue to speak out against immorality in all it's forms. That is hard for some to hear, and they want to call us "haters" for speaking truth - yet another sign of the times. Most of us will continue on anyway, no matter what the courts end up deciding is the law of the land. Only one law really matters. On the other side of eternity - not history - we will all see for ourselves what that law is. (Hint: God's law. And His word will be the final word on the matter.)

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Nov. 1, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    Carman just gave the affliction otherwise known as social liberalism the most apt name I've ever heard. Unbelievable Mental Gymnastics. Well played.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Oct. 31, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    Our language should distinguish between male-male/female-female legal unions, and male-female marriages. To not recognize the obvious differences, biological and otherwise, requires unbelievable mental gymnastics. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Call other legal ties something else. It is not SSM.

  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Oct. 29, 2014 11:26 p.m.

    The tolerant left will now be calling for, no, demanding his head on a platter.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Oct. 29, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    I have come around to believe that "Civil Union" would be an appropriate name for same gender marriage. But the term marriage has been used for thousands of years for heterosexual unions. The reason same gender couples want the term "marriage" is for respectability. I don't blame them for that they have been a whipping boy, or girl for centuries. Still we need a new term for marriage so we can identify which kind of union it is.

  • Old But Not Stupid Moorpark, CA
    Oct. 28, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    Murray, UT

    It appears that the professor lives by two sets of books.

    Only to the willfully ignorant.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 28, 2014 12:26 p.m.


    "I don't think anyone is trying to change the "definition" of marriage"

    Up to only 20 years ago, every dictionary you look at included the concept of man and woman when defining marriage. Up until only 2 years ago, all major on-line legal dictionaries I could find defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    So, yes, this is about changing the definition, both legally and culturally.

  • Old But Not Stupid Moorpark, CA
    Oct. 28, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    "...but I also believe that civically and socially speaking, marriage is a right that should be extended to anyone, including gays and lesbians."

    You need to read [re-read?] all of the previous posts. Several of them--in very clear and eloquent terms--pointed out that SSM is neither a "right," nor equal in such key fundamentals as procreation.

    Without resorting to religion, I will assert that the SS lifestyle is immoral. About any major social issue or behavior one needs only ask the question: What would our society be like if everyone did it?

    If that were to occur Humanity would die out in the next generation. Ergo, that life style is immoral.

    And, no, I don't hate homosexuals.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 27, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    Reading some of the comments here, I once again wonder how you go through the Bible and pick and choose what no longer applies and what still does. Why no comments calling for slavery to be brought back, why no calls for the death penalty for wearing two types of cloth? What criteria do you use?

  • J.S Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    @ abtrumpet

    I don't think anyone is trying to change the "definition" of marriage, but just get the rights and responsibilities every other married couple in this country has.

    As a member of the LDS church I do sustain what the Church says and does. But I am also entitled to my own opinions about things. I don't believe the Church or any religion should change its doctrines to show any kind of support to civil movement - but I also believe that civically and socially speaking, marriage is a right that should be extended to anyone, including gays and lesbians.

  • Deseretina Murray, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    It appears that the professor lives by two sets of books. On one hand he comports himself as belonging to the forward thinking intelligentsia - hence the quote he confirmed, but wants to also appear as one of the brethren upholding the sacred script of the church. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 25, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    @ SC Fan

    and yet, SSM continue rasing children, adopted and their biological offspring. go figure!

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Some of the comments do bring out some interesting thoughts on just what "equality" really means in terms of marriage. One could say that a same sex marriage could never be equal to a regular marriage because in the regular marriage the chance for procreation is possible and likely. In a world of 100 billion same sex marriages, not one could ever produce offspring. And that is an inequality that no law can ever change.

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    June 24, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    I agree with TheProudDuck. I have never seen any equality issue here. Marriage is what it is, it cannot be changed and everybody is already equal. All people have the "right" to marry, but no one has the right to change the definition of it. I don't buy into the "marriage equality" argument. That is definitely one of Satan's lies.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 24, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    So the "this" that Brother Christensen declares he did not say: does that refer to the implication of his words, or the quoted words "I think I'm a little farther along" themselves?

    Did he actually say that? Because that would be a fine thing if he did.

    Regarding "equality," I understand the word to mean that like things are to be treated alike. One may not think the differences between a male-female union and a same-sex one are significant, but there is indisputably at least *some* difference.

    Branding the whole thing "marriage equality" as if that resolves the whole question involves quite a few stolen bases.

    June 24, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Regardless of the content, misquoting someone shows a lack of integrity and honesty.

    I suppose those twisting this around would be fine if an LGBT leader were misquoted nationally? Or would that make you upset?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    Re: "Oh the horror! Being thought to favor marriage equality."

    I'm sure it's just as horrifying to Bro. Christensen to be disingenuously accused of favoring "marriage equality," as it would be to an aggressive, true-believing LGBT activist to be disingenuously accused of favoring opinion equality. Or religious equality. Or professional equality. Or legislative equality. Or expression equality. Or academic equality. Or judicial equality.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Good job Clayton!

    It must have made you sick to think someone people suggested you were ok with BLT "marriage"

    Keep up the good work

  • kvn Greenwood, MO
    June 24, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    The ever touted reason for gay marriage....equality. Used to justify just about any aberration known under the sun. What about wealth equality. Sounds fair huh? Everyone wants to be equal to everyone else, don't we? And on and on it goes. Basic human rights will never makes us equal, nor should they. A human right should protect us from others maliciousness and grant us freedom to make informed and safe choices for all. Equal justice is a right all humans should enjoy but everyone who has been married knows it is not about justice or being right, its about trying to figure out how to get along with each other. If a same sex couple want the same legal protections as a married couple, then pass laws to enact those privileges. Driving an automobile is a privilege and clearly certain humans should not have that privilege. Marriage historically is a privilege, and clearly certain humans should not enjoy that privilege i.e. small children, or brother and sister. To make it a human right, where all stand equal in marriage is pragmatically impossible and would create chaos sooner or later. When is common sense ever gonna kick in?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 24, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    Oh the horror! Being thought to favor marriage equality.