Proposed Arizona monument would honor Mormon settlers

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Jan. 18, 2019 7:40 a.m.

    The mere mention of the contributions and sacrifices in settling and building Arizona of any specific faith group is not even remotely equivalent to the outright promotion of the faith group in question.
    BTW, the name Dan W, Jones needs to appear on any plaque commemorating the early efforts in Arizona of individuals and families sent to Arizona by President Brigham Young.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 8, 2019 10:45 a.m.

    @NoNames;

    The others you mentions aren't religions. Nor is it "hostility" toward religion to keep religious monuments off of state property - it's called 'neutrality'.

    And stop all this nonsense about religion having a "favored place" in our society, it does not. It has an equal place, nothing more.

  • E. Klinche Sterling, VA
    Jan. 8, 2019 12:26 a.m.

    Pardon, the 1st Amendment is about freedom of expression and religion. That makes the 2nd, right to bear arms, that much more important.
    Freedom to remember history, recall faith and religious movements.
    We do not live in a vanilla vacuum of secular "state". Sounds like Marxism.

  • JohnMill Australia, 00
    Jan. 7, 2019 8:09 p.m.

    Freedom of speech and religion as enshrined in the First Amendment can easily be accommodated here. It is improper to discriminate based on content.
    If you would honor secular pioneers, then it is equally permissible to honor religious ones.
    There is no prohibition on recognising the contribution of particular groups. There is a prohibition on only recognising groups that are (or are not) connected with a race/religion/sex etc.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2019 11:29 a.m.

    NoNamesAccepted - St. George, UT

    @Impartial7:

    "Do you also object to monuments to honor the historic contributions of groups tied by common bonds other than religious? "

    Religious monuments are not secular. The others are. Why push your religious beliefs on others?

    Should National Park and National Monuments erase the important contributions of Catholic explorers or of the religious motivations behind the settlement of some of the 13 colonies?

    "Government non interference with the free exercise of religion was never intended to be government hostility or bigotry toward religion."

    The hostility of which you speak comes from the religious folks trying to force their beliefs on others. You hate our secular society.

    "Some would allow their own hatreds to stand that on its head and make religion the one entity where official discrimination is demanded"

    Your religious beliefs makes religion the one entity that is subjective to your beliefs. How about we make our society completely Jewish or Hindu? Would you object to those religious beliefs?

    You claim "hatred" only when someone disagrees with your religious beliefs. Isn't your hatred for those that disagree the same thing?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 7, 2019 9:58 a.m.

    It is good and important what the Mormon migration brought to the development and growth of the territory of Arizona, however, at the same time there are so many special groups of people and organizations that contributed to Arizona development that if they were all given their deserved recognition the Arizona state capital would be so over loaded with monuments that there would be no room to fulfill its purpose of government. The Mormon church purchases private land to establish their temples, therefore they should consider acquiring private land and build themselves a Mormon Memorial park and visitor site similar to what they have made in San Diego, Cal. It would be a good and educational addition to Arizona visitor sites.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2019 5:54 p.m.

    So now National Monuments are fine with Utahns?

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2019 5:38 p.m.

    @Impartial7

    There is no separation of church state in the constitution.

    The 1st amendment does not mean what you think it means.

    And it certainly does not mean to ignore or deny actual history, or to remove religion or its contributions from the public square .

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Jan. 6, 2019 4:36 p.m.

    @Impartial7:

    Do you also object to monuments to honor the historic contributions of groups tied by common bonds other than religious? Shall we forget the contributions of women, American Indians, slaves,Asian Americans, railroad workers, or other such groups? Rainbow bridge?

    Should National Park and National Monuments erase the important contributions of Catholic explorers or of the religious motivations behind the settlement of some of the 13 colonies? Should government sites fail to mention the role religion played in the Underground Railroad and abolition?

    No where does the US Constitution require separation of church and state. We must not let an analogy replace the actual contractual language by which we are bound.

    Government non interference with the free exercise of religion was never intended to be government hostility or bigotry toward religion.

    The 1st amd secures a favored place for religion in our officially secular government. Some would allow their own hatreds to stand that on its head and make religion the one entity where official discrimination is demanded.

    How very sad it is to see what hatred does to both mind and soul. Truly a canker to everything good.

  • TAS Tehachapi, CA
    Jan. 6, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    Good idea. Why put it in Phoenix? A better place would be in Mesa, or Apache, Navajo, or Graham Counties where the Saints settled.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    A monument to people who left everything behind and faced danger to seek a new and better and safer life in a new land?

    How remarkable.

    Why does it sound familiar today and what would have happened to them if they had left Nauvoo today?

    Something to think about . . . .

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 6, 2019 11:10 a.m.

    No monument, no scriptures, no statues no religious shrines on any US government or State property. Put it on the temple grounds or private property. Separation of church and state.