Quantcast
Faith

LDS Church posts Elder Holland speech on 'big issues' linked with the hope of democracy

Comments

Return To Article
  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    As loathe as I am to correct an Apostle, our government is based on the rule of law, not popular whim. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting for what to eat for dinner. We are supposed to be a Republic, based on laws that establish our rights and whose origin are divine in nature. That we elect some our leaders in a Democratic fashion is true, our society is a Republic, or should be at least.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 4, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Coach biff
    So if one subtracts democracy from a republic what does one have. So which is the more important.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 4, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." Alexander Tytler

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Couldn't have said it better, Mountanman. Skeptic, your question is phrased incorrectly. We elect some of our leaders democratically, some are appointed. Our President isn't exactly chosen democratically is he/she? What is the point of your question?

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    Skeptic,

    It's not a zero sum equation. Our voting rights are enumerated in our laws.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    This quote from the article: "It is encouraging that, at least at present, our First Amendment commits us to the more protective interpretation of religious freedom. We will see what future interpretations might bring."

    I'm not sure the Church should be lecturing on the interpretation of First Amendment protections until it admits there is absolutely no risk under the First Amendment that the Church could be forced to solemize same sex marriages in its temples. Until or unless the First Amendment is repealed, this line of argument is pure fear mongering. If the Church actually believes the First Amendment will be repealed, then it should say so. Otherwise, I'm not sure how relighous freedom is being sufficiently threatened to warrant the Church's recent obsession with the topic.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Nov. 4, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    Republic - Freedom
    Democracy - Oppression
    Peoples Republic - Dictatorship
    Peoples Democratic Republic - Oppressive Dictatorship

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    Nov. 4, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    Manzanita,

    Really? You believe it is fear mongering when there is more and more disregard and blasphemous talk against religion in this country?

    From what I understand of the scriptures there are supposed to be plenty of Anti-Christs in our day. I believe there already are plenty.

    The responsibility of the prophets, apostles, and other general authorities to warn us and let us know what is happening is part of their responsibility.

    Prophets in the Book of Mormon warned the people before they went down the paths they went down.

    With the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised that in the not to distant future the 1st amendment could be under attack. With all that has happened in the last few years I don't put it out of the realm of possibility.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    There is NO liberty under a Socialist - Marxist - Progressive - Communist state. Only forced atheism and punishment for decenter s....punishment such as using the IRS as a means to intimidate groups of people prior to an election.

  • Golf Gaffer Idaho Falls, ID
    Nov. 4, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    I appreciate Elder Holland's remarks and other of the Brethren concerning religious liberty. It's too bad that so many members do not take their warnings seriously and worse actively support either knowingly or unknowingly those laws i.e. non-discrimination, gender expression/identity, gay marriage etc. that when implemented force religious expression into the shadows. I fear that most people have no idea just how close the USA is to losing religious freedom. These laws and actions ultimately are really aimed at the destruction of the traditional family. Those who oppose such laws or ordinances are called haters, bigots etc and receive hate mail among other forms of shutting down dissent.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    Elder Holland said democracy is based on "an assumption, a hope and a belief that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil, right over wrong, virtue over vice," and that religious freedom is a foundation of that hope and belief.

    ========

    Please note: "that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil"

    Far too many on the uber-right side of the spectrum step beynd their own liberty and choose for others.
    They seek to legislate morality as defined by the dictates of their own conscience.
    They want a Theocracy.

    No different than the Taliban or Shria Law.

    Forcing others to "Choose The Right" so that none will be lost was Lucifer's Plan.
    and
    Even Alma taught Amulek while watching innocent women and children being cast in the fire - that taking away another person's Free Agency thwart the will of God -- because even the Wicked must be allowed to do their Wickedness.

    BTW - Elder Oaks taught us a Good, Better, and Best.

    We should choose good, seek for better, until we finally achieve the Best.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    Stretching forth a hand to stabilize the ark is a dangerous place to be. I'd trust an apostle any and every day.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @patriot
    "There is NO liberty under a Socialist - Marxist - Progressive - Communist state. Only forced atheism and punishment for decenter s"

    That'd be rather scary if it were at all accurate but as a Christian and a Progressive myself I know that's just plain false. How about you let Progressives say what they stand for and I won't try and assert what Tea Partiers or Conservatives stand for?

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    @Manzanita

    "...until it admits there is absolutely no risk..."

    Based on whose interpretation? Although laws seem so "concrete" and "bulletproof", they are nonetheless open to the interpretations of those sitting in the judge's seat. So maybe based on your understanding of the law there is no risk, but go poll 100 lawyers and see if they all agree with you. I'm sure there are attorneys all over the country willing to fight the church's 'discrimination' pro bono. While the LGBT community has assured the nation it does not intend to sue churches, unfortunately the LGBT is not a single unified/chartered entity. All it takes is one couple to file a lawsuit. In New Mexico we've recently seen the lawsuit against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a wedding despite her fundamental disagreement with same-sex marriage. Talk about legislative coercion.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    "an assumption, a hope and a belief that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil, right over wrong, virtue over vice,"

    ---

    Bigotry and discrimination, sir, are not "good" over evil. Religious freedom applies to every single American citizen, not just the ones you approve of.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    Until your church is forced to marry heterosexual, non-member couples in your temples there is no way they can be forced to marry an LGBT couple.

    Until your church is forced to marry heterosexual "unworthy" MEMBERS in your temples, there is no way they can be forced to marry an LGBT couple.

    Anybody saying otherwise is fear-mongering in the worst way (thou shalt not bear false witness, right?).

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    And the UBER left legislates their view of morality, it is no different.

    But all laws are legislated morality.

    The point of a representative republic, is to make out laws represent the best in public morality.

    No matter what system you use ther always be an unhappy minority who disagrees with a law,

    In our system they can change

    -
    -
    @Coach Biff

    Laws do not establish our rights.

    God establishes our rights (see declaration of independence),

    People what all the rights,

    they give some to the local government and give some to the federal government.

    The primary respsibl;ity republ;ican government is to protect those rights.

  • Golf Gaffer Idaho Falls, ID
    Nov. 4, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    I just read that the ENDA bill regarding religious freedom just passed cloture in the Senate. This would greatly reduce religious freedom in the USA particularly among small business. There are religious institution exemptions but the Democrats are already crowing about how they will be stripped from the final bill. Some of the language is so vague even the normal progressive press is calling this a trial lawyer's dream. The bill is guaranteed to pass the Senate thanks to 5 republicans who joined the Democrats making it filibuster proof. One of those is our own Orin "I love the Power" Hatch. He is perhaps the greatest threat to economic and religious freedom to ever come out of Utah since the good Senator Smoot threw the country into the depression with his Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. With good respecters of liberty, the constitution and religious freedom like Hatch, Flake, Reid and others of LDS Faith in the Senate...what do we have to worry about. Thank you Brethren.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 4, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    From Elder Holland's talk:

    Allow me one aside here. Inasmuch as more than two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated nevertheless do say they believe in God, it may well be that part of the reason for this drift away from formal church affiliation has something to do with how churches are perceived. More than two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated say “religious institutions are too concerned with money” (70 percent) and too deeply entangled in politics (67 percent).7 A word to the wise for all churches."

    Amen
    Yet it seems we are marching ever forward toward involvement in political issues.

    The birth of the "religious right" and the increasing entaglement between religion and politics has been a huge detriment to both.
    Another factor not mentioned, but I'm guessing also,plays a factor are scandals and corruption committed by church leaders.

    If we are going to defend every other religion's practice of its beliefs in the public square where do we ever draw a line? If so, why and where should the line be drawn? Do we allow Christian Science children to die without medical care? Do we allow the practice of polygamy?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    For those who disagree with the use of the word "democracy" to describe our govt. It is simply useful shorthand. Many countries use the word Republic and have nothing to do with representative government or the rule of law.

    No country I know of operates as a true or pure democracy (though some small towns in New England still do). All are representative democracies where the people vote for folks to make and enforce the laws. Call it what you want. Note that EVERY president in my lifetime (including Reagan) described our nation as a democracy.

    As to the rule of law? No piece of paper can enforce that. Rather the people must be wedded to the rule of law.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    I don't know why the DN moderators have refused to post this comment. Perhaps another try?

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    Until the LDS church is forced to marry heterosexual, non-member couples in their temples and until the LDS church is forced to marry 'unworthy' heterosexual MEMBER couples in their temples, you needn't fear that the LDS church will be forced to marry "sinner" LGBT couples in their temples.

    Anybody telling you otherwise if trying to scare you (fear-mongering) and they're also lying as can be seen by the simple fact that the LDS church is NOT forced to marry the aforementioned heterosexual couples in their temples.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @Ranch:

    So you're saying I have to wait until it actually happens before I can concern myself with the issue? Isn't that like leaving your door unlocked at night until a criminal eventually enters? Or perhaps I should let me 6-year old walk to school alone until he's finally kidnapped...

    Sorry, but I refuse to be told I can't concern myself with something until it has been forced upon me. I'd rather be cautious about the whole thing, because I wouldn't put it past some of the brilliant lawyers in this country to do just that. Call me paranoid, but it's a paranoia stemming from distrust with the real intentions of those in the LGBT community.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar;

    Our "real intentions" are to be treated equally with other citizens in this country. Our "real intentions" are to be able to marry the person we love, just like you do. Those are our "real intentions".

    In the meantime, why don't you go read your bible and ponder what Jesus commanded you: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is such a simple concept; I'm sure he didn't intend you to discrminate against those who are different than you.

  • Dante Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Ranch suggests that "Jesus didn't intend to discriminate against those who are different." However, Jesus repeatedly discriminated in favor of the Jews and against the non-Jews (Canaanites, Samarians, and others). Jesus said that he was sent only to the Jews ("the lost sheep of the House of Israel"). He initially refused to heal the daughter of the Syrophenician woman because she was not a Jew, saying, "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." The woman persisted by answering him, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table." Only then did Jesus relent and heal her daughter. Matt. 15:22-28, Mark 7:25-30).

  • rickdoctor Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 5, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    the usofa is a 'democratic republic'-- we are a hybrid -- not a pure democracy by any means, and not a pure republic -- the hybrid works for us -- we just have a problem with the descriptive terms -- so when we say we want to 'spread democracy', we only mean it in a hybrid sense, i.e. we really only mean it in our form -- what is good for usa is good for the world, correct? -- problem = no other country has the same 'make-up' and history as we do...so perhaps being open-minded to other forms of
    'democracy' and 'democratic republics' would be in order...if religious freedom is guaranteed and protected in another country, why do we need to be so critical? There are many countries where the people simply do not want our form of democracy, and where the people believe that their religious freedom is actually 'safer' than here in the crazy USA!

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    @Ranch
    "different than you"? Respectfully, I think we're arguing apples and oranges. Homosexuality itself is a behavior which at best, will not propagate the species. At worst, . . . well, the DN probably wouldn't post my comment if I accurately described Sodomy.

    Until the last 10-15 years of rulings from liberal judges, homosexuality and same-sex marriage were viewed for centuries as unhealthy for society. It's not like homosexuals ever did have marriage rights in this country. They are being "constructed" as we speak. The GLBT community has cleverly convinced society this is about "equal rights," a phrase that rightly should awaken in any patriotic citizen a call to arms. But, in this case, to couch homosexuality in any terms that remind us of "equal rights" is an affront to true civil rights. "Equal rights" based on undesirable sexual behavior; "C'mon man."

    As with other things, I believe the Founding Fathers would be aghast at what is "protected" today by the constitution in the name of the virtues they espoused. Another example is the "protection" of pornography in the name of "free speech". Another, the "right" to an abortion in the name of "freedom".

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    In other words, if one considered the basic act that constitutes homosexuality, one would see that it is a poor basis for any argument of “equal rights.” Yes, these issues are complex. I do believe that some may have a biological propensity to same-sex attraction, but that does not make it desirable for the sake of the country, community, society, or the individual. Neither does it make it uncontrollable. We are human beings, not animals. We have a soul and a Father in Heaven
    .
    I do not buy into the argument that sex is uncontrollable. The definition of marriage between a man and a woman has left many people successfully living celibate lives outside of its boundaries. I believe the notion that there is no control of sexuality is a falsehood. This notion is one the foundation philosophies that sets up all the falsehoods necessary for the justification of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It starts there and steps up, falsehood upon falsehood, till we get to the courts condoning the behavior.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @ Truthseeker

    At least for the church I belong to, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, it’s more of a case that the Church is having political issue (with significant moral implications) being thrust on them. They have traditionally avoided taking political stances. These political issues are more and more intruding on morals long espoused by most churches, and for that matter, the majority of society. Many are seeming to buy into the arguments against traditional values, but nevertheless, the Church will remain strong even though its core doctrines that once were common across denominations and society are being eroded.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    re:rw123
    "They have traditionally avoided taking political stances."

    No more.

    The LDS Church, Presiding Bishopric, to be precise, is party to a statement, "Standing Together for Religious Freedom" protesting the contraceptive mandate included in the ACA, "whether we agree with it or not."

    My question, unanswered, is if we're going to defend practices/prohibitions by other religions that we don't necessarily believe in ourselves how can we draw a line anywhere?

    It is utter nonsense.

    How does a gay married couple harm you or society? Prop 8 proponents couldn't/didn't produce any evidence of harm. My life hasn't changed one iota since I moved into a neighborhood with a wonderful lesbian couple. I also know of a gay couple who adopted a young man from foster care, disowned by his bio parents because he was gay. Thanks to that couple he now has a future to look forward to. I'm not gay, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live out my life without the companionship of someone I loved.
    I don't know why/what causes people to be gay. I leave it to God.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    @rw123;

    1) More heterosexuals practice "sodomy" than homosexuals (do you even know what makes up the term?).

    2) "...homosexuality and same-sex marriage were viewed for centuries as unhealthy for society."

    By you so-called "Christians". Until you came along, in many cultures it was revered as having identities from both genders. One could reasonably conclude that Christianity=bigotry and that Christianity is the "undesirable" behavior.

    3) "...equal rights" is an affront to true civil rights. "

    Complete and utter nonsense. The affront to civil ritghts is that you believe you are worthy and homosexuals are not. We're all "sinners", after all.

    4) "In other words, if one considered the basic act that constitutes homosexuality..."

    All you think about when you see a gay couple is sex and not the love between the couple. Who is the real pervert here?

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    @Ranch
    "go read your bible and ponder what Jesus commanded you"

    Why base your argument on a book you don't believe in? Or if you do believe in the Bible, you do not understand it. Perhaps you're familiar with the passages where Jesus goes amongst the sinners, not to pat them on the back and tell them everything they do is alright, but to call them to repentance and teach them the right way. With love, yes, but correction nonetheless. You equate his message of love, peace, "turning the other cheek", and 'anti-discrimination' with the false notion that we are to accept people with unconditional regard for the things they do, which is not true. Jesus' love was best shown when he said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more." Or in the parable of the lost sheep, after being derided because "this man receiveth sinners." What about the scriptures that teach us that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance? Or the scriptures that teach us that Christ came to save us from our sins, but not in our sins? What about those? Are those not worth mentioning?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    I've read your bible, probably more than you have, and in two languages. Just because I don't believe it's divine (you do), doesn't mean I can't use it to point out to you how you're failing in your own beliefs. Additionally, sin is a religious concept and since I don't "believe" in the divinity of your bible, sin is something you, the believer, need to worry about. I do not believe that being gay or living a good (gay) life is sinful. Go read the parable of the Good Samaritan, it was also about bigotry and discrimination.

    You are not the judge, you were even commanded to not judge but to leave it up to your god. You are told to treat others correctly, regardless of how they're living (and whether or not you approve). If you won't even do that, can you honestly call yourself a true believer?

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    @Ranch

    Congratulations on reading the Bible in two languages, you must feel pretty knowledgeable about the word of God. I appreciate your concern about my belief system and whether or not I meet the definition of "Christian" according to your understanding of LDS doctrine. Obviously we disagree, and nothing I say can persuade you to change your opinion (and your arguments don't change my opinion either). Hope you have a good day.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Nov. 5, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    Elder Holland's statement illustrates the fatal flaw of democracy: it assumes certain things on the part of the general public that aren't reasonable to assume. Because people don't behave as proponents of "democracy" naively expect them to, democracy ends up being more often tyranny of the majority than whatever egalitarian, utopian system democrats expect it to be.

    The LDS Church is a global church, with most members residing outside the U.S., so it's arrogant to presume Elder Holland's words are intended for an American audience. However, it's been established as official doctrine that the U.S. Constitution is divinely-inspired, designed to permit the Restoration of the Gospel. Religious liberty is an integral and indispensable part of God's plan. However, the Constitution created not a "democracy", but a republic--one where minority rights would be protected from the threat of mob rule. The trend towards greater democracy is precisely the cause of the problems that Elder Holland laments in this article. In order to secure our liberty, we must move away from democracy, and back towards the republican form of government that God and the Founding Fathers intended for us to have.

  • morpunkt Glendora, CA
    Nov. 6, 2013 12:20 a.m.

    If we are ultimately threatened to be fined for not marrying gays in the temple, etc., we would need to adopt the example of the Dutch. I was told by a Dutch friend that ALL couples who want to get married in the Netherlands MUST be married civilly FIRST. Then, the couples can go off to their church of choice to get married thereafter. This effectively circumvents the possibility of ridiculous litigation.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    You know morpunkt, there is no reason Mormons couldn't adopt that policy themselves. It's all ready practiced in special exclusive circumstances.

    It would not only solve the whole "you can't tell me who can get married in the temple" issue but it would also stop the horrific practice of separating and dividing families as children get married in the temple and parents are denied access to their child's wedding.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    "....Elder Holland said democracy is based on "an assumption, a hope and a belief that free people will use their liberty to choose good over evil, right over wrong, virtue over vice,"
    ______________________________

    A hope, yes but not a certainty. The Lockean basis for democracy is that the right to govern should come from the consent of the governed. Democracy means trust without guarantee of results.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    With the number of names of ancient foreign origin for whom work has been done in the Temples, I can only imagine that somewhere along the line two people of the same sex have been "sealed".

    What is stopping someone from having two same-sex ancestors sealed in an LDS temple today?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    RE: Ranch, “Jesus commanded you: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is such a simple concept;”

    Jesus, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 1honor your father and mother…Mt 17:18-19),and Paul,

    Honor your Father and Mother=(*mētēr)”[not Mothers or significant Others],which is the first commandment with a promise. (Ephesians 6:2,3).
    God distinguishes father and mother from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.

    *Greek, feminine noun(singular), a mother

  • teeoh Anytown, KY
    Nov. 6, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    @Ranch

    I’m glad you brought up “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Keep that phrase in mind as I say that for millions (if not billions) of people around the world, the institution of marriage is sacred. And I don’t just mean “sacred” in Mormon lingo, I mean that it is a time-tested, revered, and honored institution. As you think about “do unto others…” please imagine the hurt we feel when you demand that the definition of marriage be changed to mean something that it simply doesn’t mean. You could accept the word “union” and have all the legal privileges associated with marriage applied to a union (compromise!), but that just isn’t good enough. You insist on altering the definition of an institution we have held sacred for thousands of years.

    You may not believe in the Bible, but maybe the Golden Rule?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    "....You could accept the word “union” and have all the legal privileges associated with marriage applied to a union (compromise!)"
    ____________________________

    I suspect that many married couples would not go for that as a 'compromise' if it meant that in turn their own spousal relation would henceforth be officially recorded simply as a legal union.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Nov. 6, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    None of what Holland said matters, because after all, it is just his opinion.

  • Turtle Owasso, OK
    Nov. 7, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    @RanchHand

    "Bigotry and discrimination, sir, are not "good" over evil. Religious freedom applies to every single American citizen, not just the ones you approve of"

    Just what does that mean - what bigotry, what discrimination? Sounds like you have an agenda - why is it not above the table?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    After reading many posts here, it appears lots of people are tying freedom of religion exclusively to the issue of same-sex marriage. Of course, that is understandable as SSM is the hot button issue of our time, but freedom of religion is so much more than one issue.

    Example - I find it interesting how many individuals scream and shout about the separation of church and state whenever the LDS Church states a position on any issue, but when other churches hold rallies and lobby in support of Obamacare, living wages, greater environmental laws or against the death penalty, the people who were screaming before about separation of church and state suddenly fall silent.

    The Message - Churches can not engage in political matters unless we agree with said politics.

    Another Example - More and more we’ve been hearing about the problem of bullying in schools, in the workplace or online, but while society preaches tolerance, understanding and compassion, it still continues to perpetuate nasty, negative and even hurtful stereotypes against people of specific religious faiths.

    The Message - Tolerance and compassion should be shown to all, unless we feel your group is not entitled to it.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Ranch: Jesus also called the pharisees hypocrites and whited sepelchres. This seems very applicable to those who take an eternal sacred covenant like marriage between a man and a women and turn it into the exact opposite of what God intended. Jesus loved the Pharisees, but didn't shy away from telling them how corrupt and distorted their view of religion and God's word had become. Jesus wouldn't be into political correctness, which is why its a pretty good idea to stand up for what he said and live the way he lived. He doesn't condone gay marriage.