I very much like what I have just read. This is not just good advice for those
that are LDS but for all. Understanding and learning from others of different
faiths, beliefs, etc. can only improve and strengthen bonds that will be needed
to step forward to the future.
I hope he is talking about and referring to his congregation of Mormons to give
up their immoral ways of encouraging and harboring fugitive illegal foreign
nationals to plunder and loot the taxpayers of Utah and the nation. I hope he is
referring to the illegal Hispanics and Mexicans to return to their homeland and
obey the laws of the United States. I hope he is referring to all church members
to stop using sympathy as a weapon of deception to encourage foreign occuaption
and subversion of our rule of law and law and order.Yes, I do hope
he is talking to his flock to be good and responsible Americans and not to
support breaking our laws or disobeying law enforcement and declare the Utah
Compact a criminal collaboration of oppression of the American people and their
jobs. It is time we all put our country ahead of our religion and sympathy
because if we don't preserve our country and laws we cannot practice our
freedoms to be independent, self sufficient, and be honorable in our religious
I support the thought of moral living, but restore to what point in time? When
we had slavery and lynchings? Pre-civil rights? There have been some bad
things done in this nation, many of which were covered up, glossed over or not
open discussed. I really don't know if we are better, worse, the same or
similar to the past. There are lots of good things about the world, and the
need to exhort people to live better lives has always been there.
While I think there is great value for many in the practice of their religion
and I always certainly hope our society will allow the freedom to practice
religion I don't see large groups of people threatening religious freedom.
Secularists, though they may ridicule religion (and I would hope even religious
people would want to preserve their right to do so) rarely if ever threaten to
impose restrictions on religious expression. Also while there are
great Judeo-Christian values we have to recognize there is an evolution of
values independent of the Bible. Moral ideals we all share came about in many
areas of the world that never had access to the Bible. Also the Bible, though it
contains great moral teachings also contains teachings we would find appalling
today-such as encouraging slaughter of people who worship other gods(example:
read Numbers 31).Last Elder Cook seems to encourage the unified
effort of religions in maintaining religious values. I find it ironic that he
is concerned about preserving religious freedoms yet wants religious people to
unite in defeating freedoms secularists would like to allow in our society.
Humanity is better now than it's ever been. A higher percentage of humans live
in societies with more liberties, freedoms and most important, civil rights,
than ever before.I simply do not understand or agree with the notion that
society is getting worse. For a person to admit that is for that person to agree
they've never actually studied any history.I would like to hear one
ancient culture who provide better and more human rights than our current one.
speaking of Secularist the Elder states "In their view, there is no
'objective moral order' and no reason to choose one goal over another," he
said. "They believe no preference should be given to moral goals."So apparently mischaracterizing those that disagree with you with one
large brush stroke is know a civil and respectful way of conducting yourself in
discourse. Many Secularist people think there are reasons to choose
certain goals for the betterment of the world and society based on logic and
science. I know its hard to imagine but you can be an ethical person without
religion. If religion helps you be a more ethical/moral person then great but
don't mischaracterize those of us that do not believe as you do.
It is not so much that I believe no preference should be given to moral goals -
I just don't think your moral goals should be given more preference than my
moral goals.I believe in order to maintain true freedom of religion,
we cannot use the law to codify the beliefs of some religious groups over the
beliefs of other religious groups - regardless of how popular or unpopular the
various beliefs are.I believe that overuse of religious symbols
removes their sacredness and makes them mundane.I believe that there
is good in Judeo-Christian moral values, but I do not believe those values only
belong to Judeo-Christian worshippers. Many of those values can be found in
every religion and most of those values require absolutely no religion.I don't need to fear punishment or crave rewards in order to respect others.
I don't need punishment or rewards to respect myself. I don't
believe that claiming to be religious and have moral values is the same as being
religious and having moral values. The world would be a much better place if
religions worried about the beam in their own eye before worrying about the mote
Speaking of Secularists, Elder Cook states, "In their view, there is no
'objective moral order' and no reason to choose one goal over another,".
He said, "They believe no preference should be given to moral goals."
Since we cannot offer objective proof that God exists, religion based morality
is definitionally subjective. The only standard for objective moral order is
the libertarian view of allowing all to do as they please as long as no
OBJECTIVE harm against anothers person, property or rights occurs. This would
outlaw murder, theft, fraud, etc...but still allow Sunday shopping, cussing, and
penny ante poker (all of which have been/are illegal based on religious
morality).Religionists view laws being based on the "harm"
standard rather than on God's alleged standard, as an attack on religion and on
the freedom of religion. Not so. It is simply recognizing proper place in a
pluralistic society with a secular government. Religion is losing the special
rights it undeservedly had. Those special rights included having prayer and
Bible reading in schools and, amongst others, banning those things mentioned
previously. When laws are based on religion, religion is no longer a
beacon, but a "tractor beam".
Is Elder Cook aware that people of other than "Judeo-Christian"
religions are in the United States? Is he also aware that their religious
freedoms are just as protected as his own?
My childrens keeper. Does everything have to be about illegal immigration?
Can't we talk about something else. The church does not support illegal
immigration. The church understands that many people are leaving Mexico out of
desperation. Why not reach out to those in distress instead of passing
judgement on others. This issue is getting far more attention than it deserves.
I don't care what some immigration status is they are still human beings and
should be treated as such. Please get over it. Demonizing others is not the
way to spread the spirit of Christmas.
Today over 40% of American children are born to unwed mothers, the divorce rate
is close to 50%, and a large percentage of society, some of them who claim to
believe in the Bible, advocate that same-sex marriage should be legal. Those
that oppose these trends are derided as being antiquated and out of touch with
society, and in many instances, have been fired, fined and jailed.The morals of our society are in a swift decline, and Elder Cook is absolutely
correct that unless we do something about it, those of us who have strong
religious beliefs will be sanctioned in our efforts to exercise those
beliefs.I for one plan on doing whatever I can to stop this trend
and preserve the freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died.
Religion doesn't bring us any greater moral guidance than our inherent nature
does. Indeed, what it does do is empower a lot of people to do things ranging
from strange to inhumane based on an unquestionable authority they claim to have
TheWalker, The only people, in this country, that were fined were those who
ignored their states' laws when they refused their companies' service to gay
clients. No one has been jailed and I know of no one being fired. A few quit
their jobs (like that theatre executive) once their donations to Prop.8 became
known and they knew that most of their colleagues were very opposed to Prop.8.
Firing people for their religious or political beliefs is clearly illegal.The sky isn't falling. Criticism isn't persecution. Your religious
rights are not in danger. We LDS SHOULD try to encourage people to
live righteously, but using our political might to pass laws promoting Gospel
principles but which infringe upon the rights of others violates scripture (1
RE: VocalLocalThe seculaarists rarely if ever threaten to impose
restrictions on religious expression?Waht are you talking about?They are trying to remove any and all religious expression from the
public square.From schools.From public property.From government.From our founding documents. From our founding fathers.And they want all replaced with their
philosophies and beliefs, all out of some misguided thinking that their ways
are better, that they are elite and know better.it is called
progressivism (and it is in both parties) and it is has been destroying our
country for a century, taking away freedoms (for security, for PC, for
"science", for forced equalization, compelled charity, etc), and
centralizing power and dependency in the federal government.People
need wake up to what's going on, rather than believe the lie that whatever the
progressives do is good and right, that giving up a little here and a little
there is all right, it is not.
NeilT - "Does everything have to be about illegal
immigration?"Yes, it does. Not only is it is hugely important,
since it effects everything else: the economy, jobs, education, security, etc.,
it also is hugely relevant to the article at hand -- especially given the
recent, official Church statements which clearly and plainly oppose efforts to
enforce immigration law. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement
provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each
other as children of God." So stated the Church on June 10th, 2011. In
other words, enforcing the law is immoral and inhumane. This is
where those responsible for promulgating such false doctrine -- and that is
exactly what that is: false doctrine -- ought to be taking Elder Cook's advice
to heart, and repent. People rob banks in desperation. That does
not make it right. The notion that desperate bank robbers should be given a
pass in the name of "compassion," is, again, a lie. MyChildrensKeeper - Thank you. You are absolutely right. The
country is in jeopardy, for the reasons you named. And God will
clean His house first.
@TheWalkerperpetuating the same lies that have been proven time and
agin to be false does nothing to establish your moral authority.@the
truth your propaganda speaks for itself. no real need to comment
The irrational, illogical, and fallacious nature of the religionists' rhetoric
is becoming increasingly transparent and laughable. Meanwhile, nonbelievers
continue to advance more humane and moral legal and social institutions, without
having to wait over ten years for a so-called "revelation" from any
god or his self-proclaimed "mouthpieces".When religious
hegemony is broken, nonbelievers in society do more in a few decades for the
advancement of morality and improved quality of human life than a thousand
religionists have provided in two millennia.
@Vanka - talk about irrational, illogical, and laughably fallacious. Let's hear
the long list of non-believers who have advanced civilization.Do you
mean those who founded our nation as a better system of government than anywhere
else in the world at that time? Oh wait, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,
Franklin, etc. were nearly all believers. Do you mean the one who
held our nation together and freed slaves? Oh wait, Lincoln was also a
believer, as were those who operated the underground railroad.Do you
mean scientific advancement? Oh wait, Einstein was a believer.Do
you mean human rights? Oh wait, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi,
Mother Theresa, and their followers were believers.I daresay that
most reforms leading to more humane legal and social institutions have been led
by believers with a more enlightened perception of human relationships than
their believing and non-believing contemporaries.I'm curious about
all the advancements to civilization that were led by non-believers.
Iwas reading the other day and this is where things have changed.There was a time when the morals of this country coincided with the standards
of the Church of Jesus Christ. Today that is not true. Today as has been
mentioned we have seen the decline of marriage because of the so called
no-default divorce, unwed mothers, and of course to top it off same-sex
marriage. We have seen an increase in children borne out of wed-lock though
this has declined it is still prevelant amount those below the poverty line. We
have seen where society approves of co-habitation and the birth of children with
or without both parents. True some will say we now require an absent parent to
pay child support but does that really help the child.Same-sex
marriage is a moral dilemma that some in the Church appear to approve without
understanding the eternal perspective of it. The only thing is that it this
moral decline will only continue to do so until it is at a point that a
religious person will not only be persecuted but killed for their beliefs. How
many are willing to suffer death?
We have fifteen men on Earth that are recognized as prophets, seers and
revelators. They are the Lord's mouthpiece. Whether you want to believe this
or disagree with it. IT IS STILL A FACT. As in the past the words of the
Prophets were laughed at, mocked, pit upon and even killed for what they've
said. The world has not changed in this regard. Yet, we still have the Second
Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to look forward to when there will be no
wickedness upon the earth, where all knees shall bow and every tongue confess
that Jesus is the Christ. Until that happens the majority of the people will
continue to call good bad and bad good. They will declare that the secluarists
have done more good than any prophet. However, in the end their words will fall
upon deaf years and be destroyed.
Vanka your comment is meant to be hyperbole right?
Before I retired about five years ago, I practiced law in San Francisco for the
better part of twenty years. Since then, family and friends have kept us pretty
well informed on whatâs really happening on the ground. I
hadnât been in the bay area long before I found myself thinking,
âBoy, you almost need to carry your passport around here. If youâve
trying to live traditional values, youâre an alien.â As the
intellectual climate deteriorated, it appeared to me that the first amendment
right of free speech existed only for politically correct speech. The
later came into sharp relief in the aftermath of a recent campaign for Prop 8.
Those who exercised their precious first amendment rights by contributing to the
winning side found themselves in real difficulty. Businesses were picketed and
customers deflected until they contributed an equal amount to gay causes.
Several were forced to resign their jobs, many more intimidated into silence.
Houses of worship were vandalized. Two brief quotes from our last
general conference make the point clearly. Neil L Anderson stated, âOnce
the standards of the church and of society were similar. Now, they are
not.â Boyd K. Packer put it this way: âYoung people today are raised
in enemy territory.â A recent survey asked a representative group of
young people to respond to some simple ethical questions. The results were
shocking, as more and more children are raised without the guidance of our
traditional religious values simply cannot effectively make moral judgments. In an intellectual vacuum, it may be possible to conceive of a society where
values and morals are taught without the anchor of religion, but in the
observable world, it just ainât necessarily so. You might just catch a
nice trout fly-fishing in my front lawn, but youâll do better if you go
down to the river.
Intellectual atheists are vulnerable to the Marxist philosophy of dialectic
materialism.Therefore they line up on the side of the Marxist
Socialist objective of slavery of all opposition and the seizing of their assets
to be owned and controlled by an international collectivist government.Their strategy is to keep the knowledge of God and his commandments from
humanity.Judeao-Christian objectives are simply: Liberty and freedom
to all individuals through obedience to Gods law namely the Ten Commandments and
Christs Sermon on the Mount.
What confuses secular people, or rather, what causes them to stumble, is their
false belief that there is no absolute moral authority anywhere in the universe.
They either don't believe in God or if they do, believe that God is a "do
whatever you want, it doesn't matter" type of being.Both ideas
are absolutely false, and therefore, are destructive when hung in the balance,
i.e., examined in their totality.You simply can not fight against
truth/reality and come out happy and fulfilled on the other end.BTW,
to some of the posters on this comments board, Elder Cook was talking to you.How long, Lord, how long?.....
It is interesting to read from some posters that Elder Cooks basic message of
"be good and work with others to achieve goodness" is found to be so
objectionable. For you secularists and liberatarians, mankind has
never shown itself to be basically good. A guidepost of rights and wrongs does
not come from humanity naturally. The natural man is an enemy to God, and man
by nature is carnal, sensual, and Devilish. Oh sorry, that last statement might
be too religious for you. Sorry.
m.g. - It is interesting to read from some posters that Elder Cooks basic
message of "be good and work with others to achieve goodness" is found
to be so objectionable.KLK - The problem is that
"goodness" is subjective. Is allowing women to show their faces
"good" or should they wear bhurkas? Is allowing people to shop on
Sundays "good"? Us libertarians state that men should
choose for themselves what they do as long as their actions exert no objective
harm on others. Murder, rape, theft, fraud all exert OBJECTIVE harm and must
therefore must be banned. Shopping on Sundays, playing penny ante poker,
drinking a beer, etc...objectively harm no one else. Some may be subjectively
harmed (offended), but no one has a right to not be offended.Elder
Cook seems to want a generic Christian view to be the standard of goodness and
seems to be calling on people to use the power of government to force that
standard on others. This idea runs counter to the scriptures and our own
experiences of having others' ideas of right and wrong foisted upon us.
@MyChildrensKeeper & @anti-liarPlease grow up and start acting
like Christians. I wonder if this is how the Mexicans of the 1800's felt when
those routy Texans invaded their property and then coming in illegally after
they passed laws to kick them out? God will clean His house, but you may be
surprised what that actually means.@CHS 85 In a blog from I believe
a year ago, Elder Cook did in fact mention working with Muslims. So yes, he and
the rest of the Brethren are well aware of non-Jewish/ Christian religions and
love the people of those respective faiths.@Hutterite Not so, people
doing bad things in the name of religion are not really religious, but are
rather politicians using religion for their own means. The truly religious will
be the most peace loving, kind, moral people you'll ever meet. Despite what John
Lennon said, you can't find real peace without Christ. He is after all, the
Prince of Peace.
Moderators - There is nothing in here that even comes close to violating any of
your stated prohibitions.anti-liar,You criticism appears
valid. I think the Church MAY be putting pragmatism over principles. The
Church was threatened by some Latin American governments that if it didn't do
something favorable on the illegal immigration issue, that these countries would
no longer let American missionaries in. So the Church apparently may be
abandoning principle in order to achieve a greater good. The same
thing appears to be true regarding my signature issue - Prop.8. The Church
likewise seems to have perhaps bypassed the scriptural prohibition of allowing
one's morals to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others (1
Cor. 10:29, D&C 134:4) in order to avoid a negative consequence. I don't
think we should be "steadying" the word of God by apparently
rationalizing our actions in order to avoid possible negative consequences.These are simply my own perceptions. I'd love to hear others' views.
Stay the Course,Not at all.
Restoration of morality?Or does he mean restoration of Mormon
morality?Mormons do not have the market cornered on morality. Mormon
morality is not the sine qua non of morality.And, like the
fictitious "falling away" (apostasy) Mormons claim happened, this is
also a fictitious "departure" from morality. Morality, humanity, and
ethics in the world are at an all time high. There is much more to do, but the
moral sky is not falling as this article would have us believe.
LSA$: I disagree with you on the rights issue. Again this is not a civil
rights issue. It never has been and never will be except for those who want to
make it so. It is strickly a moral issue and such the Church has the obligation
to speak up and be heard. You failure to understand this is very disturbing.Secondly, where do you get off in saying the Church was blackmailed into
making a statement on immigration. It seems it is you who are at a
loss as to why the LORD would want this to be. Marriage has eternal
consequences and such same-sex marriage is not defined at all in scripture. In
fact, just the opposite is true. The Church has taken a stand that it has every
right to do. The Family Proclamation is a referendum and all who have heard it,
read, and seen it will be held accountable for it.
The secularists to which Elder Cook refers are a major force in redefining
marriage and silencing those that don't agree with their philosophy. One such
example is Elaine Huguenin, who in 2010, was fined $7000 by the New Mexico Human
Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
Following the court ruling, she stated:If it becomes something where
Christians are made to do these things by law in one state, or two, its going to
sweep across the whole United Statesand religious freedom could become
extinct.Elder Cook was absolutely correct when he stated that we
need to be more than observers.
Dear Censors, there is NOTHING in the below that violates your posting
guidelines. This topic and Ms. Huguenin's actions have been discussed before.
You may support her and TheWalker's position, but your job is to make sure we
all play fair. It is NOT to take sides and sway the discussion.TheWalkerThe secularists to which Elder Cook refers are a major force in
redefining marriage and silencing those that don't agree with their philosophy.
One such example is Elaine Huguenin, who in 2010, was fined $7000 by the New
Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment
ceremony.KJKWhen Ms. Huguenin got her business license, she
had to agree to being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. She then chose to violate that
promise and was fined. She broke the law. Period. If she doesn't like the law,
she should move to a state that doesn't have such laws. She has no right to
complain. She knowingly violated the law. She was free to choose her actions but
not free to chose their consequences. That's how Agency works.