text:
LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment
MaaronSLC Salt Lake City, UTJune 21, 2014 8:44 a.m.
I didn't know we had to get sexual identification. What office to I do to for that?
Kowboyy MIDVALE, UTJune 21, 2014 1:59 a.m.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Harry is just an idiot that will do and say anything to be reelected.
gwarner Draper, UTJune 20, 2014 1:08 p.m.
Regardless of how you feel about this particular issue, the LDS Church should discipline Harry Reid for his never-ending dishonesty and for his never-ending lying.
As my mother would say, Harry Reid would lie if the truth would better suit his purpose.
unoken1 Minneapolis, MNJune 20, 2014 6:00 a.m.
I know God Lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Elder Monson is the prophet on the earth today :)
Dominique* SLC, UTJune 19, 2014 4:17 p.m.
And since the vast majority of Mormons have no clue of their own history, and historical "revelations" ... no major change has come into Mormondom without a change of the hearts of the members, and the pressure from members, politics, and the courts.
Harry Reid stated a fact.
Harry's fact upset a faction of Mormons.
LDS, Inc. fires back, needlessly.
Times are changing folks. And most of you commenting here are on the wrong side of history. I remember the very same arguments being made during the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's and 70's. The very same things were being said about inter-racial marriage.
The sky still has not fallen, Chicken Little.
Rob_ Lehi, UTJune 19, 2014 2:44 p.m.
One of the reasons I don't think the church coordinated the recent disciplinary hearings is because they are concerned about PR. I think they merely pushed for being stricter with apostates, and the specifics are more-or-less coincidence.
As a PR-minded institution, the church isn't going to touch politicians with a 10 foot pole.
If they were to appear to be attempting to sway politics (through punishment, or any other means) their tax-exempt status would be in jeopardy.
They church is willing to do a great many things, but they would never put the opacity of their finances at risk.
skeptic Phoenix, AZDec. 3, 2013 7:35 p.m.
It is all just a matter of time.
gdbryan Aloha, ORDec. 3, 2013 3:57 p.m.
Reid and Hatch are not aruguing with the LDS church alone. They are arguing with the
apostle Paul who wrote very clearly what God thinks of gays and lesbians.
I think that if God had given them over to a reprobate mind, he is not really all that
happy with their behavior. It is behavior and not just a life style or ethnicity.
Behavior that if one is born with it, should also prevent prosecution of a murderer
who was born that way also. Who would buy that argument in court?
smith1 Provo, UTDec. 1, 2013 11:40 a.m.
TMR - how has the church's view changed?
bluesmule Sandy, UTNov. 26, 2013 10:23 p.m.
I think we're all missing a key point. Harry said that the church and its members are changing their views on gay RIGHTS. Key word being rights. It's true that members are changing how they view gays and the church has always taught to love everyone regardless of what they do and the only reason it seems like the church is changing its mind is because this is a topic that wasn't really discussed before, because it wasn't really an issue. Now it's a growing issue and it needs to be talked about now, whereas 25 years ago no such discussion would need to take place. What the church's statement said is that the church has not changed its views on gay RIGHTS and neither does Harry Reid have the right to make a statement for the church like that. Maybe the members have changed their views on gay RIGHTS, but that isn't indicative of the church as a whole or of what the church's actual stance on gay RIGHTS is.
GiuseppeG Murray, UtahNov. 22, 2013 4:21 p.m.
Uh yeah....Reid said the Church's and its members views are changing? The Church is just reiterating that its doctrine (ie...the Church's view) has not changed on this issue. The way many individual members may "see" and "feel" about gays certainly has changed. What's the big whoop, other than Reid misspoke by stating "the Church's views" rather than just saying "many members of the Church's views?"
grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZNov. 21, 2013 11:34 a.m.
The church Doctrine has not changed. However, we as members of the church are taught to love everyone, and not be judgemental of their actions. I personally know two young men that have had mission calls, However, one of them was sent home early, and the other did not act out on his Feelings until after he was married and had a family My heartaches for both of these mens family, because i have a Strong testimony that God Created Men and women differently and for a different purpose.
Red Neckerson Goldsboro, NCNov. 21, 2013 4:05 a.m.
Why am I not surprised about Reid's commentary about the LDS Church. This is a man who believes in Conscripted Benevolence or in other words, you are financially responsible for others people's lack of financial responsibility.
IMAPatriot2 PLEASANT GROVE, UTNov. 20, 2013 9:51 p.m.
Disappointed but not surprised that Orin Hatch voted for this bill. He needs to be shown the door because he isn't representing the majority of his constituents.
cindy56k TOK, AKNov. 19, 2013 3:09 p.m.
Those who follow the doctrine of the church and sustain our leaders, thoughts or views have not changed. It is not ok with us on the gay subject.
John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MINov. 19, 2013 8:04 a.m.
I think people on both sides of this issue are being extreme. I have seen too many suits against Catholic schools for firing teachers for breaking Catholic doctrines to trust this law to not be used for more such attacks on religious freedom unless it has a much stronger religious freedom component.
I also don't want to deal with biological women who insist they are men using men's bathrooms. Considering how many companies already have non-discrimination policies in place that cover this matter, I am trying to figure out exactly why we need this law at all.
Federal laws need to be passed to address actual major corners. No one has shown there is a compelling need for this law. Other things are more than dealing with any problems.
John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MINov. 19, 2013 7:56 a.m.
The claims that the Salt Lake City ordinance was "similar" are missing the point. That ordinance had a very, very clear exemption for religious organizations, ENDA does not.
Reid should stop injecting religion into his speeches. If Orrin Hatch had attempted to say he understood the mind and will of the Church we would hear no end to the attacks. Harry Reid is not a Mormon Senator, he is a Senator who happens to be Mormon. He has no more authority to speak for the Church than I do, and definitely none to attempt to imply the Church supports a law it clearly does not.
John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MINov. 19, 2013 7:51 a.m.
ENDAs protections of "gender identity" are very disturbing for people who take seriously the Proclamation on the Families statement that gender has premortal origin. Gender and biological sex are the same, and those who think that they are the wrong sex are disordered.
John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MINov. 19, 2013 7:50 a.m.
ENDA has far too narrow a religious exemption. If it had an exemption for all religious employers, and if it made exemptions for certain other religiously motivated actions, it might be justifiable.
However with homosexuals earning more than comparable non-homosexuals, the case for why we need ENDA at all is not compelling.
crunchem Cedar City, UtahNov. 18, 2013 5:17 p.m.
part 2
So here he claims that the entire church has shifted, but based only on his fellow DC attendees. Anyone want to guess the political makeup of a Washington DC ward? Anyone think that represents and average cross section of LDS political or social positions. Even remotely close to the official church position?
Notice also the author says (but doesn't use the quote, if there was one) that Reid has 'given a lot to the church' ; it's almost as if Harry is saying 'Look, I'm a mover and a shaker and have given A LOT of tithing money from those real estate scams, so my opinion ought to have an influence on God's position, you know'
crunchem Cedar City, UtahNov. 18, 2013 5:14 p.m.
The entire quote, from the Washington Blade, relevant to this story:
Reid, a Mormon, was asked by the Blade how he reconciles his faith, which says homosexuality violates God's law, with his support for gay rights. Reid replied that he's given a lot to his church and there are Mormons like him who share his views.
"When I attend church here in Washington, D.C., I bet more people agree with me than disagree with me, and so the church is changing, and that's good," Reid said.
part 1
twspears6007 Bakersfield, CANov. 15, 2013 10:06 a.m.
Harry Reid has separated himself from some of the doctrine of the LDS Church as a member I support the doctrine of free agency. I do not support any member who tries to speak for any positions that are contradictory to Church Doctrine. Marriage is between a Man and a Women Harry Reid has chosen another position that does not support this sacred doctrine. Harry Reid also was instrumental in the passage of Obama Care. He voted for the bill knowing that it was basically flawed and some of the bill was based on a deception that Obama even after he was advised not to promised that if you like your Health care and your doctor you could keep it. Harry knew it was a deception and some Democrats after a meeting before the bill became law told Obama to not make that promise because it was not the truth. Harry Reid needs to refrain from making statements about LDS Doctrine that he knows are misleading. While the LDS Church excepts non-active homosexuals they will make every effort to convert the lifestyle because of its opposition to Gods laws. Trenton Spears
Contrarius mid-state, TNNov. 14, 2013 9:08 a.m.
@Roundtrip --
"Jesus would have never accepted same sex marriage,"
Are you speaking for Jesus?
Oddly enough, Jesus never said a single word against homosexuality. However, he did say that people who were "born eunuchs" (the term "eunuchs" included homosexuals in ancient texts) should not marry women. (Matthew 19:12)
Roundtrip Thomasville, GANov. 14, 2013 7:22 a.m.
TMR- please don't speak for me. I'm LDS and my views have not changed. I have always been kind to gays, as Jesus was kind to every child of God, but Jesus would have never accepted same sex marriage, so that's the bottom line. No offense intended.
Brahmabull sandy, utNov. 12, 2013 8:24 a.m.
The gospel clearly changes as well. Doctrine has changed several times over. You can try to deny it, but most people have at least come to terms with the fact that doctrine has changed.
Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00Nov. 12, 2013 3:21 a.m.
Durham, NC
country berry..... not sure how old you are..... but yes.... the church does change with differing times. The gospel however does not. If you need a list of "changes" the church has made.... we can start a list.
7:23 p.m. Nov. 11, 2013
recently --
Women saying prayers in General Conference.
Women saying prayers in Sacrament Meetings.
Blacks holding the Priesthood,
Polygamy [in the beginning - against it, then for it, then against it again.]
The rigid, stiff-necked, "conservative" types usually leave the Church when things change - they are so set in following the "God NEVER" changes mantra.
When a change does come along, and their reality is shaken, they think Prophet has fallen.
Uncle John Cape Coral, FLNov. 12, 2013 2:34 a.m.
It sounds like most are missing the issue here. The Church supports God's Law, marriage is between a "man and a woman". Period. Therefore the Church cannot support "gay marriage". Period. Does the Church support a "gay lifestyle"? No. Does the church reject gay people? No. "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Period. The question here is: Do you keep the law of chastity? Period. Think about it.
UtahBlueDevil Durham, NCNov. 11, 2013 7:23 p.m.
country berry..... not sure how old you are..... but yes.... the church does change with differing times. The gospel however does not. If you need a list of "changes" the church has made.... we can start a list.
Contrariuser mid-state, TNNov. 11, 2013 7:12 a.m.
@wazzup --
"can someone explain to me why we need this law when it is already illegal to discriminate on those terms. "
Actually, it isn't. That's a common misconception.
Currently there is no Federal law which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some STATES have such laws, but the country as a whole does not.
In states that do not have anti-gay discrimination laws, a man can literally be fired for simply saying "I'm going to the movies with my boyfriend".
Here's a few examples of how employment discrimination affects people across the country:
college soccer coach in Nashville -- fired in 2010 after she told her team that her female partner was pregnant.
legislative editor of the Georgia General Assembly -- fired in 2005 when she told her boss that she was transsexual and was going to begin dressing/presenting as a woman.
professor in Wisconsin -- offered a job as a university dean in 2010. When that university found out she was a lesbian, the offer was rescinded.
schoolteacher in Minnesota -- she was fired in 2013 after acknowledging that she's a lesbian.
This is a real problem that affects real people.
wwookie Payson, UTNov. 11, 2013 4:24 a.m.
Why do some of you think this bill imposes on BYU´s ability to not hire gays and lesbians?
The church can discriminate against religions by only hiring those that are mormon. Guess who determines whether you are mormon or not? That´s right, the church. And the church can excommunicate based on sexual orientation.
Wait for the real fight that´s coming - when churches start to be sued over excommunications of gays and lesbians. That´ll be a doosy.
Brahmabull sandy, utNov. 10, 2013 9:26 p.m.
"the church does not change"
Yeah, sure. Keep telling yourself that.
christoph Brigham City, UTNov. 10, 2013 8:32 p.m.
I used to be a Reid fan (frankly I used to be a William Clinton fan too, and Joseph Biden fan and Charles Schumer fan; and yes there are GOP politicians that are difficult to comprehend as well), the above mentioned have put their law degree ahead of Bible values. I respect John Kerry and Al Gore for not going around talking only of one piano key on the piano: these men know there are 88 keys on piano. Don't forget the poor Mr. Reid, they are more important than your new interest to be popular. Peter and Paul taught a message of morality. And if your niece or your children or your cousin convince you to go after anything other than what Peter and Paul taught, then you are therefore putting your education and the Constitution above the Bible and the prophets. If all followed the Bible, we would not need laws. Abraham put God first, (ahead of his own son), and we should too, and that is what is best for families.
wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UTNov. 10, 2013 7:04 p.m.
can someone explain to me why we need this law when it is already illegal to discriminate on those terms. What specifically does this law do that the other anti-discrimination law does not.
I wish the senate and harry reid would get back to balancing the budget and fixing entitlements. that affects EVERYONE.
bandersen Saint George, UTNov. 10, 2013 6:21 p.m.
It has been my experience that those without convictions usually express tolerance. Tolerance for anything is the politically correct thing to express so as to not offend an amoral electorate or to see yourself as you actually are, someone without conviction. Jesus, on the other hand, preached the Sermon on the Mount, but called the Pharisees corrupt and whited sepulchurs, hardly the 'tolerant' person Harry Reid seems to see as the leader of his church.
Country.berry Savage, MDNov. 10, 2013 10:07 a.m.
The church does not change.
kiwigirl Wildomar, CANov. 10, 2013 2:21 a.m.
It isn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that needs to worry about maintaining it's credibility. It's got credibility the world over. Senator Reid, however, would do well to work on his. For him to do that, he should stop talking - just stop talking!
Gary Federal Way, WANov. 9, 2013 11:20 p.m.
It is WRONG to fire someone just because they are gay. Jesus has told us to love our neighbors. We shouldn't be judging them just because of an issue they were born with. Blacks are born black and that doesn't make them any less than whites are. They are as good as we are. The same for gays. They are people just like us with great talents shared with all of us. Nothing is being said about marriage, etc, but about the workplace and passing a law to stop the work places from firing people based on being gay. This has nothing to do with religion and has to do with protecting a person who is innocent from losing a job just because of being gay. Without ENDA, any company could fire someone and use the "gay" reason to terminate even if that person wasn't gay.
We are more advanced people now and carry new views on who people are and that those who are born the way they are should be loved by us and treated with respect. That's what Reid was saying that our views have evolved a great deal in the past century.
Kelliebelle66 West Jordan, UTNov. 9, 2013 7:52 p.m.
I didn't feel he was speaking as far as the church and gay marriage is concerned. I felt he was speaking because of the increased understanding people are having and the church's desire to reach out to those in the gay community. They have developed a web site geared towards encouraging members of the church to have more compassion towards and understanding of the LGBT community. As an LDS woman with a gay brother I understand that it is important that all people have basic civil rights. I do not want my brother or anyone to suffer by losing employment or housing due to his sexual orientation. We all need to learn that supporting civil rights for all does not mean we are supporting behavior we disagree with, it's important for everyone because if we pick and choose we could be the next group on the outside being persecuted. And with the church's history of its members being persecuted and driven from homes and livelihoods, all LDS people should be in the forefront of making sure nobody suffers the same even if the church's stance on gay marriage will not change.
bigv56 Cottonwood, CANov. 9, 2013 5:54 p.m.
Reid is so out of touch. What else is he flexible on? Just because we do not believe I the Gay lifestyle, does not mean we harass or persecute them . How about leaving us alone?
justmesal MOUNTAIN VIEW, WYNov. 9, 2013 1:55 p.m.
For Open Minded Mormon
You stated: the LDS Church has indeed changed it's position of LGBT "rights" over time. It used to be LDS members were automatically excommunicated for "being" gay. Now, it is only acting on that comes into question.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have a question. I know a man who told his Priesthood leaders he was gay over 40 years ago (he's in his 60's now). They tried to help him and get him to "change," but he was not excommunicated until he and a companion moved in together. So I'm wondering when they change it to being a behavior issue. I was always taught it is sinful behavior that you need to repent of, not your feelings, or temptations that you resist, that need to be repented of or excommunicated for. I am a life long member of almost 60 years so just wondering if you can tell me when anyone used to be excommunicated for something they feel rather than something they did?
FifthGenMormon Snowflake, AZNov. 9, 2013 1:49 p.m.
PlaybytheRules is right. God's views are eternal. He loves ALL of his children, gay and straight. God's views regarding His black children were revealed in June 1978. Who are we, as church members, to say that we have all knowledge about His gay sons and daughters? No, church doctrine has not changed with respect to homosexuality. But the church cannot speak for all of its members on the subject. As a proud, gay church-going Mormon in a small Mormon community, I can vouch for that.
In my humble opinion, Mormons and everyone else can look to the example of the current Pope on same-sex attraction. "Who am I to judge." Hopefully, LDS leaders can have that kind of compassion in the future. Right now, the Mormon Church seems to want it both ways -- we are compassionate, but gays have no place in God's plan. How can THEY know that for sure in a church that believes in continuing revelation?
justmesal MOUNTAIN VIEW, WYNov. 9, 2013 1:33 p.m.
The church has always been for equal rights when it comes to housing, jobs, health/hospital, probate etc. The Church has also not changed it's position that Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. They made that known AGAIN at the same time they made their position known AGAIN during the California Prop 8 vote, but the media did not report what the Church's position was on equal rights for same gender couples at that time, they only reported what the church's position was on same gender marriage.
As a member of the Church my personal position is the same, I do think that couples of the same gender should have equal rights. I also do not believe that marriage has anything to do with constitutional rights. Marriage is ordained of God and has been in place long before the Constitution of the United States.
kargirl Sacramento, CANov. 9, 2013 1:01 p.m.
As long as we claim to be the recipients of modern-day revelation through prophets, we are never going to be able to say, "this is how it was, is, and always will be". Yes, the Lord is the same, and truth is the same. But we, imperfect people that we are, don't have all truth. Witness the new discoveries and inventions of science and medicine that improve our lives and health--how many of us are living healthier lives than we might have a hundred years ago? Perhaps Senator/Brother Reid has not forgotten this unique feature of our religion and realizes that revelation gives us growth in the Gospel (1978, for instance) as members grow in maturity, understanding, and love for one another. I am sure he isn't the only member to feel this, perhaps one of the ones who is simply known well, and happened to mention it in public. Now, I'm mentioning it here. Thoughts, anyone?
jbrote47 Dilworth, MNNov. 9, 2013 12:38 p.m.
I have never been ashamed or embarrassed by being a member of the church, but I am both that harry reid is a member. His actions against this country are horrific at best.
bob3293 logan, UTNov. 9, 2013 12:26 p.m.
The Church's views on many topics do change, as God instructs it leaders. In fact, they obviously change tremendously on the subject of marriage partners. I really don't understand at all those who say they don't. I think the quorum's contemporary disposition on this topic remains to be seen.
suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UTNov. 9, 2013 11:39 a.m.
To Irony: Harry Reid will stand for anything that makes him popular -
suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UTNov. 9, 2013 11:38 a.m.
To: TMR of Los Angeles, Harry Reid has no clue evidently what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in or he wouldn't make such a foolish statement. The statement that religion is a choice and sexuality is not? People who are homosexuals choose to accept that way of life...God didn't make them that way...they have chosen to go along with their feelings of promiscuity with the same sex and that is their choice only. But they have to realize the larger majority does not accept that type of behavior therefore they reap the consequences. The Lord loves His children but does not love many of their choices. Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and their choices should not be forced on others to accept.
ldsdaniel San Diego, CANov. 9, 2013 10:59 a.m.
It is quite unfortunate to say that after reading about 20 or so comments in, the people who commented against Reid sounded really bitter and the people for Reid sounded really Christlike. As Latter-day Saints, we truly should consider how THE LORD, JESUS CHRIST himself would address and treat certain topics and people, NOT how our political party of preference would treat them. So let's "wake up and so something more" than succumb to our own innate (natural man) desires. Face up to reality and know that sometimes, the truth really hurts.
Rick LT GLENDALE, AZNov. 9, 2013 10:48 a.m.
It's about time Harry was disciplined by the Church for his pretending to speak for it because of his senate position. He's also taken a number of other anti-constitutional positions that are basically in opposition to the Church.
Happyman Middletown, MDNov. 9, 2013 10:39 a.m.
Yes - I will agree that the Church and many of its members are more accepting - and this is good!! God loves all people - all people are God's children - he doesn't love a straight person more than a gay person - God is sadden by sin - we all have sinned and we all need to repent - we all need to follow the commandments.
I'm grateful that we have Harry Reid and Orin Hatch in the Church - they are both faithful LDS -
kvnsmnsn Springville, UTNov. 9, 2013 10:34 a.m.
Play by the rules posted:
=If the church wants to maintain any credibility being gained by devout
=followers of Christ they are going to have to part ways with Harry Reid.
I beg to differ. The LDS Church is a better place for having Reid as one of its members, even though I personally disagree with him.
1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UTNov. 9, 2013 10:23 a.m.
How can a Church with plural marriage part of its current doctrine keep claiming that it supports "traditional" marriage? I don;t get it.
Little Andy Tremonton, UTNov. 9, 2013 8:26 a.m.
@Thinks: God did not change his views on blacks. It was always stated that "The day will come when all worthy men will recieve the Priestood. And it did..
mark Salt Lake City, UTNov. 9, 2013 8:00 a.m.
Hey SuziQ,
I don't mind working with or hiring someone from the LDS community if he/she keeps his/her religion and feelings to his/herself, but I have often found that this community wants to convert everyone around them into accepting, and even embracing their lifestyle. Defining oneself by one's religion is rather limiting.
New to Utah PAYSON, UTNov. 9, 2013 7:10 a.m.
Hatch,Heller,Flake and Udall represented themselves and not the LDS church in voting for ENDA. I'm disappointed in their vote because I think pressure from the gay and lesbian groups and corporations influenced their vote. Mike Lee and Mike Crapo were willing to take a courageous stand and vote against ENDA. DC is so disconnected to the people: lobbyist and influence peddlers seem to dictate what happens.
Mel50 Nashville, TNNov. 9, 2013 12:02 a.m.
Heavenly Father's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and populate the earth. And Nephi said he knew God wouldn't make any commandment without preparing a way for them to keep that commandment. If God was okay with same-sex coupling, He would have made a way for them to reproduce. But He didn't. Of course the argument is brought up - "but what about old people, or infertile couples, or couples who choose not to have children?" It doesn't matter. The biology is there, regardless of the health, or age or desire of the couple. Two men together, or two women, can never conceive a child together, no matter how healthy they are, or how great their desire.
I can't imagine a time when the church will ever sanction gay marriage and anyone who thinks that some day temple sealings will be performed for same-sex couples is crazy, imo.
SuziQ Springville, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:55 p.m.
While I find this subject rather fascinating, I do think an interesting point has been brought up. While it is interesting to speculate over Harry Reid's opinion of what "the Church members" are thinking and it is interesting to hear the official LDS Church response (same as it has always been), I think that the real issue will be what impact the law has on who can be hired or not hired and for what reasons. Just as same sex marriages delete references to mother and father (parent 1 and parent 2 are the preferred designations)and as Obamacare tried to force a birth control provision on Faithbased organizations that are opposed on moral grounds from using birth control, will this new law force similar types of compromises? I don't mind working with or hiring someone from the LGBT community if he/she keeps his/her sexual orientation and feelings to his/herself, but I have often found that this community wants to convert everyone around them into accepting, and even embracing their lifestyle. Defining oneself by one's sexual or gender orientation is rather limiting. I hope this law doesn't inadvertently reinforce that type of thinking.
elarue NEW YORK, NYNov. 8, 2013 9:54 p.m.
Gay rights are much broader than just gay marriage. And while I haven't read Reid's exact words (which, for the convenience of your readers, DN, you could have quoted him directly ;-) ), the paraphrase in the beginning of the article says that the broad view of the members has changed, not the doctrines of the church. There is quite a difference, and we should look more closely to understand exactly before we pass judgment.
RBB Sandy, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:39 p.m.
I love how with liberals it is always enlightened thinking if it agrees with their position. I believe the gornment has no more business twlling you who to sleep with than it does telling me to hire. If you do not like my views, actions or religion, you can quit any time. Why don't I gey the same right not to hire you. The problem with Democrats and some Republicans is they want to force you to do what they think is right. The constituion was meant to prevent this, but good luck finding a Democrat who believes in that any more.
bj-hp Maryville, MONov. 8, 2013 9:36 p.m.
Open Minded Mormon: I'm sorry to say but you are being deceived if the LDS Church has changed any of its views. First off they never excommunicated anyone for just having same-sex attraction. That is a fact. They have and continue to excommunicate members who are living the lifestyle, especially if they are an endowed member who has taken upon them the temple covenants that are completely and entirely against the gay lifestyle. The new website is not as it states for those who are comfortable with the homosexual lifestyle but for those who DO NOT want to live that lifestyle. There are alternatives. The church has always taught that we must love all of our brothers and sisters regardless of what they do. They have come out more because of the public attention that has been made by the church. As for more attention to Prop 8, Elder Oakes stated in a Stake Conference I attended that the LDS Church was asked by others to join in the matter in California but it probably would not get as involved in other states in the same manner. However, they still send letters to members before elections.
Georgie Baby Denver, CONov. 8, 2013 6:01 p.m.
So, in theory, I agree that discriminatory employment practices should be done away with. But there is a problem. Do we trust what Obama, Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, and a Congress are saying this bill is about? The current administration and Congress have been very adept at the bait and switch through legislation. (Think Obamacare, Immigration Reform, etc.)
What is the REAL agenda behind this legislation? Who or what organization was involved in writing the bill? How many of us are commenting based upon emotion over the issue, and not a true knowledge about what the bill contains? Will this erode at our religious freedoms through crafty language? Why is it that we haven't heard about this bill before it hit the news cycle? Our representatives are intentionally keeping the answers to theses questions from us so that we, as a people, have no time to respond or become intelligently informed.
We are being corralled, and I don't trust it. I certainly don't trust the politicians in Washington.
Heidi T. Farmington, UTNov. 8, 2013 5:31 p.m.
Thank you, play by the rules.
The Caravan Moves On Enid, OKNov. 8, 2013 5:17 p.m.
Article quote: "On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the church's doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect. "Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.""
Does the leadership of LDS church counsel its members to be kind to homosexuals?
Yes, it does.
Does the leadership of the LDS church say that homosexual activity of any and all kind is sin?
Yes, they do.
Will the leadership of the LDS church ever change their position?, that which they've told by the Lord?
No, they will not.
Like the hymn says:
"Then say, what is truth?
'Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o'er.
Tho the heavens depart
and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence,
will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore."
Amen to that!
Ldsrm Spanish fork, UTNov. 8, 2013 4:52 p.m.
Harry Reid, D-Nev., had said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are changing their views on gay rights.
The church reacted Thursday evening by issuing a statement that indicated its doctrine about traditional marriage has not changed.
Harry Reid is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and speaks for him self not the church
happy2bhere clearfield, UTNov. 8, 2013 4:51 p.m.
My main concern was not so much about how the LDS Church would handle marriage. I'm sure that Bishops will never marry same sex couples. And certainly there will not be sealings in Temples to same sex married people. My main point was how will the leadership of the Church address the issue of the public voting for a change in marriage laws, and or having the state legislature and govenor pass on such changes. The Church after all did take a public stance on Prop. 8 in California, and now would they just stay quiet, or would they take a public stance against legal same sex marriage here in Utah also? That will be a tricky road to travel in the social and political circles of a secular America. Especially when the amount of negative publicity coming would be unceasing, and likely focused specifically on the LDS Church.
NightOwlAmerica SALEM, ORNov. 8, 2013 4:46 p.m.
Clearly there are individuals here that are more interested in "declaring" rather than "obtain" first.
So far I have seen posts about:
Exaggerated claims and twisting of LDS statements.
Serial posters and hacks that cling to an alternative lifestyle.
And only a few posts that make sense.
dustman Gallup, NMNov. 8, 2013 4:42 p.m.
@Worf: And there will be plenty who will just judge others because their beliefs differ.
Rebel ,Nov. 8, 2013 4:42 p.m.
I believe Senator Hatch has deserted his constituents in Utah on several issues, morally and otherwise.
We hope he stays in Virginia with the other Democrats. Having been born in Virginia and spending about 45 yrs of my life there I am very disappointed in the recent voting history of
Virginia that one was a great state.
I wonder if the earthquake Virginia experience a couple of years ago may have been caused by our Founding Fathers Rolling over in their graves?
happy2bhere clearfield, UTNov. 8, 2013 4:41 p.m.
And if the Supreme Court does not give a blanket ruling and leaves marriage up to the states which is what any court that really cared about the constitution should do, then what?
zzz6valvoline salt lake city, UTNov. 8, 2013 4:17 p.m.
If one looks at the statements the church has made over the years, the approach to the LGBT community has definitely become more inviting, while maintaining the doctrine. There are plenty of good LDS democrats. The church made a statements to clarify its position, which is good. It's not a swing at Harry Reid. Besides, Orin Hatch also voted for it. It's a good law. Discrimination is never ok.
ute alumni paradise, UTNov. 8, 2013 4:08 p.m.
to go along with harry's previous suggestion, someone that is credable told me harry may be lbgt. I don't know, just heard.
worf Mcallen, TXNov. 8, 2013 3:32 p.m.
Good, and Bad, always has, and always will be what it is.
Some will stay in the middle of good, and bad, to please those in a large and spacious building. They do not want to be judged as bigots. They feel shame, and eventually justify wrong doing.
A division of weak, and strength is taking place, and we make our choices.
dustman Gallup, NMNov. 8, 2013 3:21 p.m.
@VST: Although I used the quotation from Mormon Doctrine, the same was being preached from the pulpit at multiple general conferences. The church has stated that doctrine is what can be confirmed and supported through the standard works. That is exactly what McConkie did, and numerous others, they confirmed their teaching of African Americans and the priesthood through the standard works.
Even the proclamation of the family hasn't been presented as official church doctrine, but is characterized as a reaffirmation of standards by the LDS church. Even the lectures on faith isn't seen as divinely revealed scripture and was removed from the D&C.
All I'm suggesting is that there is a possibility we could hear from church leadership that they were wrong as it pertained to same-sex marriage... even if its 50 years down the road. Our LDS church leadership has been wrong in the past, so I've accepted they can be wrong today. That's why we are counseled to pray about these things so that we may know for ourselves.
bandersen Saint George, UTNov. 8, 2013 3:03 p.m.
Dustman: Only one problem. The source you quoted is not found anywhere in their scriptures or never spoken by its prophet or accepted by its membership. Personal titles to the contrary, this is not "Mormon doctrine."
Any person with a lick of common sense would only have to look to Europe right now. Italians will no longer exist in a half century or so if current population growth between the sexes don't see the value of children. This doesn't even account for economic fall out from this 'just look out for yourself' mentality. Now, throw in something even more bizarre, gay marriage, and the real threat to civilization comes into focus, at least for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts to feel. A no brainer, but in a brainless world, people are more prone to come up with another form of marriage to 'break down' the barriers of 'civilized' living! What's next? Marrying your cat or dog are real possibilities.
liberty or ...? Ogden, UTNov. 8, 2013 3:02 p.m.
Quite personaly as a fellow Mormon, I would love to have a doctrinal discussion with Harry Reid any time and have him justify any of his actions in the last 13 years with his religions doctrine. I don't usually like to post judgemental commments on any way but for me I'll tell you exactly who Reid reminds me of their names were William Law and Thomas B. Marsh. I believe the rest of mainstream Christianity just calls them Judas's.I know thats harsh but I am willing to list doctrine and scripture one after the other and challenge Reid can reconcile any of it with his current political stances. And this is from some one who genrally doesn't like to add politics to religion but principles and morals should. As for the stance on Gays. News flash it hasn't changed people just because ypur gay is not a sin in the church nor has been it is the act of Sodomy that has been condemned that goes back to Kimball, Joseph smith, Josephus,St. Paul, Peter,Christ, and even all the way to moses IF you believe scripture that is(OR evolution for that matter)
exchief62 ST GEORGE, UTNov. 8, 2013 2:42 p.m.
If Harry Reed could put as much effort in being a follower of Christ's teachings and knowing what the church doctrine about same sex marriage is and always will be, has he does being a left wing Democrat. You just may be able to join your own church!
Anti-Nephi-Lehi Boise, IDNov. 8, 2013 2:39 p.m.
@Ranch - the US is not a Theocracy - but the Church IS.
God is completely relevant to this discussion as it is HIS Church being referenced.
Filo Doughboy Bakersfield, CANov. 8, 2013 2:22 p.m.
@Trainman- the Church's policy 'Today' is one:one. From 1840-1890 it was another policy.
Do you think it might be different in 2020-50?
@Ranch- Good point. We are not a theocracy. Brigham Young and Co. found that out rather abruptly when seeking statehood.
However, as you state that "God is irrelevant to this discussion": Where do you think monogamy came from? The same Source that the sodomy/adultery/fornication prohibition derived from.
@Anti-N/L- Your founder claimed specifically that God evolves and progresses: "I will refute the idea that God remains the same", (King Follette Discourse). Unlike the LDS God who sent a besworded Enforcer to enstate plural marriage (D&C 132), the Biblical God never gave such instruction.
To paraphrase you, I find it interesting to read LDS comments that are not aware of their history that reversed marriage and priesthood requirements. I know, I taught it and lived it for 40 years.
atl134 Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 2:06 p.m.
"I do wonder about this likely scenario in the not to distant future. 15 states have now enacted same sex marriage laws, and it is likely that more and more will succumb to the secular PC pressure to change. What happens when Utah is the last state standing"
I imagine the Supreme Court will rule it legal nationwide long before Utah becomes the last one standing. It's entirely possible that the suit against Utah's Amendment 3 could end up eventually being the one that makes it legal nationwide.
dustman Gallup, NMNov. 8, 2013 1:54 p.m.
I'm wondering if it will change in the future. Remember when the Apostles said African Americans would never get the priesthood.
"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)
I wonder if more "light and understanding" will come about later.
Brahmabull sandy, utNov. 8, 2013 1:53 p.m.
You claim the church still believes in polygamy as a doctrine?
then why would president Hinckley say that he condemns it as a practice because it is "not doctrinal." He said this when he was prophet, seer, revelator, and president of the church. So how does that work if the highest memeber of the church says it is not doctrinal, but you say the church still says it is.... doesn't add up
Brahmabull sandy, utNov. 8, 2013 1:48 p.m.
The doctrine has very clearly changed as well.
Esquire Springville, UTNov. 8, 2013 1:48 p.m.
@ International Bee, what nonsense. Prop 8 all by itself contradicts your dogmatism.
FREDISDEAD West Point, nyNov. 8, 2013 1:44 p.m.
@ RanchHand
Sexuality is INDEED a Choice always has been...always WILL be.
Filo Doughboy Bakersfield, CANov. 8, 2013 1:42 p.m.
1- Culbear is correct: It's all about sex outside of marriage, (one man and one woman). Whatever your attraction is, is not the Biblical issue per Biblical doctrine. It is being faithful to your spouse. No fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia or sodomy. (God's Period.)
2- Someone needs to do their Mormon history Conference talks homework, not to mention every LDS prophet's statement on the reason God "placed a curse on Cain and the Lamanites". Black skin was the curse/judgment/decision of the LDS Elohim.
Least some forget, some of us were born before 1978 and we know what was taught at every level of Mormon Doctrine. And Bruce R. McKonkie's book was quoted more than any other resource.
Wonder what curse the Book of Mormon God would put on homosexual sex, marriage or temple sealing?...
Goldminer Salem, utNov. 8, 2013 1:36 p.m.
To Really???
Your quote, "On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding." is very good and, it applies BOTH ways. The "Left" is VERY fast to blame the "Right" for a statement that the "Left" do not like but they have NO tolerance if the "Right" does the same thing. So, when that happens, both are wrong in their attack. Time we recognize major philosophical and even religious difference and figure out where our commonality lies and focus on that.
One thing is for sure, we DO need people to have babies to keep the society we have! :):)
kargirl Sacramento, CANov. 8, 2013 1:35 p.m.
vance, Let's see, those roads you drive on? They don't just belong to you. And the utilities you'll use were there before you got there, and the payments are not only yours, but some of it is shared. If there's a fire, or you need any assistance, those cops or ambulances will be partly funded by the local government. And if you buy the property, you'll finance it and insure it--more businesses and government, and if not, you'll lease. You'll also insure the inventory. Shall I keep going? We haven't even hired anyone yet to begin the paperwork and employees, or even advertised (more labor) or opened the doors. Now do you understand, this business is financed by you, but money goes to many places, and you aren't even breaking even yet. It is not the same and yes, other people have an interest in it, including local and federal government agencies. So, yes, you do need to obey laws they set.
Trainman Ivins, UTNov. 8, 2013 1:30 p.m.
Harry Reid and Orin Hatch are so completely out of touch with what is going on, they don't even know the policy of their own church. All one had to do is listen to the talks at General Conference last month to get the message. The church's policy is marriage between a man and a woman. That's it.
Ranch Here, UTNov. 8, 2013 1:21 p.m.
How many children can an infertile couple bear? How many children can an elderly couple bear? How many children can a man or woman who has had a vasectomy/hysterectomy bear?
None, yet each of these groups can marry. Gays are "similary situated".
"God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" until he changes his mind. Example: "Thou shalt not kill, steal or covet, except I command you to kill the Caananites so you can steal their land which you covet".
God is irrelevant to this discussion. We are NOT a theocracy.
tylert73 West Valley, UTNov. 8, 2013 1:11 p.m.
Mr. Smitty- Reid's comment mentioned the church in reference to "gay rights." That is a blanket statement, nothing specific about this legislation. What is the gay rights fight? GAY MARRIAGE! So the response was on target. Attitudes and perceptions definetely have changed among the members of the church, and even it's leaders. But the goal of gay activists is to have gay marriage accross the board. So when gay rights is brought up, it is appropriate cut it off at the pass and make it know that although understanding and tolerance is higher among church memers, our stance is still the same.
Also, the polygamy and gay marriage are totally different. Brigham Young had many wives, that bore many children. How many children can gay couples bear?
AZguy Phoenix, AZNov. 8, 2013 1:10 p.m.
I think Harry is right on; at least I hope so. It is true for me and I hope for my fellow Latter Day Saints as well.
I personally feel I am more accepting of varying lifestyles than I was in years past. Marrying a democrat helped, but I would like to think that I have learned to be more accepting as I have asked for the same from others. All humans deserve kindness and respect, and can believe or live how they choose. I expect the same consideration.
Anti-Nephi-Lehi Boise, IDNov. 8, 2013 1:04 p.m.
It's always interesting to me to read people's views/hopes that the Church of Jesus Christ will somehow swing into "modern thinking" regarding social issues such as marriage. The church is Christ's and Christ's alone and therefore will not and can not be made to change stances on such topics with societal winds of change - or 'growth' as Senator Reid puts it.
Marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is God's plan and CANNOT be modified simply because its politically correct to do so or because it would make some people feel better. And hoping that God's plan will for some reason change in our day and age more to the liking of some of His children is nonsensical.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever - as is His Plan of Happiness for all of us.
patriot Cedar Hills, UTNov. 8, 2013 1:02 p.m.
No question the church has reached out to gays more than ever before in the past 5 years. Homosexual sex is still a sin and will forever be a sin so that hasn't changed but the effort by the church to reach out and make welcome homosexuals as members is something that elder Holland and Oaks have both spoke openly about. Homosexual marriage will forever be forbidden in the church simply because it destroys the family unit and core relationships.
kargirl Sacramento, CANov. 8, 2013 12:58 p.m.
I'm LDS, and, like Senator Reid, I see nothing in our doctrine that supports discrimination in employment such as ENDA addresses. I further don't know why anyone would. This bill should be so easy to vote for, I don't see what the problem is.
Truthseeker SLO, CANov. 8, 2013 12:46 p.m.
Nowhere in Harry Reid's statement does he use the word "doctrine."
He was speaking in the context of anti-discrimination in employment and housing.
He has a mixed record on gay issues.
Church leaders in the past suggested homosexuality was a "choice." Others suggested/believed homosexuality could be "cured."
Has the LDS position changed on those views? If so, then the LDS Church's position on homosexuality has evolved, as it should.
From the SL Tribune, Feb 2013:
"Attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in quiet discussions with leaders of Utah's gay and lesbian community, trying to hammer out language for a statewide ban on housing and employment discrimination that the church could support."
Lastly, the Church (and everybody) ought to drop the " traditional marriage" moniker. Marriage has taken different forms throughout history--including the practice of polygamy-- which the majority of industrialized countries view as outside the norms.
Ranch Here, UTNov. 8, 2013 12:42 p.m.
Your concerns could easily be addressed by the LDS church implementing a policy that every couple marries first in a civil ceremony (justice of the peace for instance, or your bishop) and then they go through the temple for their sealing (they already do this in many European countries - per the laws). If they had a like policy here, then the church's ceremony wouldn't even be part of the discussion.
Here's how: 100 years ago it was one man, many women in the LDS church - that is most definitely NOT one-man/one-woman.
It sure appears that a lot of Mormons on this thread are bearing false witness against Senator Reid.
Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 12:33 p.m.
The LDS Church is dodging Reid's comment by making an unrelated yet true statement. Sure, the LDS Church hasn't changed it's stance on gay marriage, but it has changed it's attitude and philosophy regarding sexual orientation. Why does the LDS Church issue a statement that doesn't directly address Reid's comment. Reid didn't say anything about the Church changing it's position on traditional marriage.
And by the way, the LDS Church has changed it's position on traditional marriage or they decided to embrace traditional marriage. Polygamy is obviously not about one man married to one woman.
Filo Doughboy Bakersfield, CANov. 8, 2013 12:31 p.m.
Don't rail on the Nev. senator! Harry Reid is just a product of post-1890 Mormonism. Mormonism is a fluid work-in-progress, with the splinter groups opting for the smorgasbord menu. Neither FLDS, RLDS or LDS shall ever merge.
Today's "in stone" can be tomorrow's "former teachings". When your foundation can shift with each new leader, it's just a waiting game for the reversal hopefuls. Reid is just a MINO- a Mormon in name only. He could easily start his own RLDS group- Reid LDS. He just hasn't figured out that LDS know he only retains his faux membership for political gain.
Wait, wait for it... A Reidism is forming on the horizon. But you'll have to pass it before you read it or you'll never understand it. Harry knows that sufficient public pressure causes strange reversals for the patient hopefuls.
Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KYNov. 8, 2013 12:17 p.m.
I wish as a church we weren't so obsessed with worrying about what the world thinks of us. I'm thinking of all of the PR and news releases and spokesmen/spokeswomen etc etc.
Throughout the scriptures the prophets and other believers just boldly proclaimed the truth even if it meant harm being inflicted on them or the church.
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like now days the church is trying to hard to serve the Lord without offending the devil.
As an example, I seriously doubt that this post will see the light of day. It will likely be rejected because it might detract from the public image of the church.
Craig Clark Boulder, CONov. 8, 2013 12:12 p.m.
"Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and only those Words "never change "."
My experience with Protestants is that they are as wide ranging in their views as are any other group. And all it takes is one glance at these DN discussions to see that Mormons are not all of one mind either. Let's face it. These worn out old labels just don't mean as much as they may have at one time.
OnlytheCross Bakersfield, CANov. 8, 2013 11:56 a.m.
Mormons are locked into following their leaders, as are Catholics, JWs and other leader-lead groups. Otherwise, the disaffected sn leave. Whether a local imam, rabbi, or prophet, followers adhere to their spiritual authorities.
Protestants follow the Biblical mandates, and only those Words "never change ". All the leader-led groups have redefined and/or reversed Biblical and/or their previous doctrines. For example you have Vatican II, LDS 1890/1978/1991, and the Watchtower renunciations of all of their 1914-17 prophecies. Strict Bible-Only believers never have to deal with reversal fall-out. If they disagree with the Bible, they start their own group... (just as JSmith, CTRussel, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, et al, did.)
The point: Hope for change or reversal springs eternal in the heart of the extra-Biblical followers. Evangicals just go to Sola Scriptura.
In the words of (atheist) Pen Gillette to (liberal Catholic) Piers Morgan, if you don't agree with your professed leader's position, leave the organization. Why do you try to change his decisions? Ex cathedra or "God told me" is pretty definitive.
bandersen Saint George, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:53 a.m.
Atl134: Perhaps the light might be opening a mind or two. There is an ocean of difference between 'state tyranny' and federal tyranny. Since I begin with the supposition that government is 'evil at best'(I'm in good company if you count our Founding Fathers as proof), then federal tyranny is much worse than state tyranny. At least at the state level I can go meet with the scoundrels and vote them out of office. I can also have a better chance to educate the 47 million slaves of the Republican and Democratic party elite that parlay ignorance as a tool to enslave. Liberty has a way of staying around even when Democrats and Republicans want it extinguished. No law at the federal or state level is going to make any difference when virtue and morality have no root. So, rather than going through these illusory issues of gay marriage and the like, independent minded people focus on keeping the federal government out of everything that it has no right interfering with and which in the end destroy liberty for everyone. People came to America for one reason, to get away from those who don't understand liberty.
Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, UtNov. 8, 2013 11:47 a.m.
To "TMR" how have the church's views changed? From the very beginning the LDS church taught its members to treat others kindly and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That was taught 100 years ago, and is still taught the same now.
To "Wastintime" to answer your question, you would be married to both. So you know, the church still believes in the doctrine of plural marriage.
To "Open Minded Mormon" I hate to tell you this but 20 years ago I read in the LDS church's handbook of instruction that gay members were to be welcomed into church, and were to abide by the same standards as all other members. There were no restrictions on going to the temple, except in cases where they decided to dress as the opposite gender. They are only excommunicated if they act on their urges.
bobdc6 park city, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:46 a.m.
Marriage, as addressed in the Senate, is a creature of the state, not the church. Only the state can grant the church (or anyone else) the power to marry, only the state can enforce the laws of marriage, only the state can grant the power of divorce, which resides in the courts, not the church (or anyone else). It's a matter of equal rights under the law and does not affect church doctrine at all.
DLF GLENDALE, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:44 a.m.
ZEEP is right. Marriage is a state issue, a power retained by the states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment -- but Senators Hatch and Reid would know nothing about that. Senator Lee alone seems to honor his constitutional oath.
Craig Clark Boulder, CONov. 8, 2013 11:40 a.m.
I recall many discussions held in Gospel Doctrine class. If that's any measure, I would say that in taking liberty in interpreting Church belief in his own way, Harry Reid fits right in with Mormon tradition.
Candide Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:39 a.m.
Why does God care if 2 consenting adults want to enter into a loving relationship? I would think that God would be preoccupied with the thousands of children that die everyday of malnutrition. For that matter, why do people care about what consenting adults do? There are enough real problems in the world to solve without worrying about what Adam and Steve are up to.
happy2bhere clearfield, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:31 a.m.
Looking beyond Reid on this issue, I do wonder about this likely scenario in the not to distant future. 15 states have now enacted same sex marriage laws, and it is likely that more and more will succumb to the secular PC pressure to change. What happens when Utah is the last state standing, and all the boycotts (remember South Africa) begin in order to financially punish the last state for not passing these same sex laws? Think it won't happen? Maybe not, but if it does, the LDS Church is going to be in a tough place. They can't say they endorse same sex marriage, but might realize that Utah can't stand to be put in such a financially vulnerable position. I hope the Church leadership is thinking about how to handle this, if and when it comes.
Convert Cedar City, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:30 a.m.
My concern related to LGBT rights is that it remain a debate about civil rights, not religious rights or religious freedom. The LDS Church has always considered LGBT sexual behavior as immoral.
Adultery, hating others, premarital sex, bearing false witness against another are also against God's laws and Church standards. These acts are lawful, however.
Freedoms and civil rights have been progressively established throughout America's history. It wasn't long ago when black citizens were lawfully segregated from the rest of us. Freedoms are essential and must be established as needed.
The LGBT community is being discriminated against in various ways. It is time to correct this unAmerican conduct. I see no reason to fear LGBT freedoms. America will be stronger. And God will continue to provide for His children.
isrred South Jordan, UTNov. 8, 2013 11:21 a.m.
Canyontreker "Everybody is now in a protected class except the straight white male."
False. Straight (sexual orientation) white (race) male (gender) is protected under the same anti-discrimination laws.
International Bee Ogden, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:55 a.m.
Esquire, the church did not miss an opportunity to do the right thing. The church does not need to judge and publish every piece of legislation. For heaven's sake… do you really not understand the church at all? This is a worldwide church… they are concerned about far more than what goes on in this country. Do you expect the church to comment on all legislation in all countries? Or.. do you think that the only important country is the USA? We know that the church teaches, "Teach correct principle and they will govern themselves."
T^2 Sandy, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:57 a.m.
Just because the LDS church does not believe in Gay marriage does not mean that it should support discrimination against the LGBT community. The church believes that everyone is a child of God, is loved by him and should be loved by us.
The bill in question does not support gay marriage, simply supports non-discrimination.
Additionally, "Say No to BO" mentioned that the church would be compelled to hire openly gay applicants. Just because someone is gay does not mean that they are not living in accordance with the teachings of the church. Being gay is not a sin, acting upon those feelings is. People that simply have LGBT feelings, but do not act on them, can still be members of the church and enjoy all of the privileges and blessings, including serving missions and temple worship. So what would be the problem with having them working in church departments and church universities. I guarantee you that BYU already employs openly gay individuals.
etrnllife4evr tucson, AZNov. 8, 2013 10:45 a.m.
It seems apparent to me that a point that is being missed in this discussion about Senator Reids comments that the church has or is changing it's stand on gay rights is not so much about if he or others feel or think differently now about Gay Rights but really should be about what God has instructed us is correct through his living prophet today. We are a church of continuing revelation but at no time previously , now or will there be in the future that it will be condoned that suddenly the lifestyle choice of being gay is condoned by God. As has been said distinguishing between the lifestyle choice and the person is something that has improved and loving the person but not loving their choice of lifestyle may be a more common attitude adapted by more LDS members but cetainly that is not to say that now it also in turn makes their choice to want to marry one another a correct principle. The prophet and leaders have repeatedly stated the truth that "marriage is viewed by god as being between a man and a woman". There cannot be a child created between any other 2 entities.
U-tar Woodland Hills, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:45 a.m.
It seems as if Harry want's to be the spokesman for everyone and every thing. He has specialized in distortion for many years and is at the point where he now truly believes every lie he tells. Trouble is, not everyone is buying in, including the LDS Church.
BB Santaquin, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:37 a.m.
Let's make it clear that Harry Reid does not speak for the church and it doctrines... And he most certainly does not speak for me...On almost every Political statement I couldn't disagree with him more...
Ranch Here, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:21 a.m.
Just an FYI, falling in love with someone, and choosing to spend your lives together is NOT "giving in to one's base desire". It is EXACTLY the same thing that you heterosexuals do.
Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NMNov. 8, 2013 10:21 a.m.
"Church" & "members" views(members as whole)to my experience, have ALWAYS been what Christ taught "Love thy neighbor as thyself". The Church has been put into a position of having to officially print and express where they have ALWAYS stood and ALWAYS will as it is doctrine...it has NEVER changed and NEVER will....
@Blue...see above and ALWAYS has treated everyone as "reular human beings" since we ALL are children of God. Anyone who does differently is out of line with the Gospel!
Hon, there will never be "official change" of eternal doctrine...only policy and this is not policy but doctrine...it's a changing social issue...no such thing with doctrine.
suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:17 a.m.
Harry Reid is a member just like anyone else. Reid must be living in a dream bubble because the active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not changing their feelings and beliefs re homosexuality. We are just more quiet with the subject. Reid can only speak for himself-he has no right to speak for others. He is a dye-in-the wool liberal and he certainly does not speak for me.
atl134 Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:16 a.m.
@Lone Eagle
I am a heterosexual even though I'm single and not involved in a sexual relationship since I'm attracted to people of the opposite sex. A homosexual likewise is still gay even when they are single and not involved in a sexual relationship because they're attracted to people of the same sex.
"They don't understand because they don't like liberty."
Liberty? You're for state sponsored suppression of liberty. That's no better for the people than it coming from the federal level.
Herbert Gravy Salinas, CANov. 8, 2013 10:13 a.m.
Surely, Harry's pomegranate trees need his FULL-TIME attention.
Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CANov. 8, 2013 10:11 a.m.
It appears that Harry Reid makes up LDS Church doctrine, just like Nancy Pelosi makes up Catholic Church doctrine, to soften resistance from the anti-religion zealots. And I remember some decades ago a little old LDS lady who was defriended for protesting the demolition of the historic small church building in which she'd grown up.
The LDS Church I knew then would have kicked Reid out for such a heretical statement. But it is likely the church will eventually bow to public pressure as they did when in '78 Prophet Spencer W. Kimball had revelation allowing Blacks to become priests in the church.
Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CANov. 8, 2013 10:09 a.m.
Bro. Reid is exactly correct. The views of the church are changing rapidly. Members and leadership are altering their views to reflect the doctrinally illogical position of punishing members for the way they were born. Please research the LDS website stating the Chruch's position on Mormons and Gays.
oldcougar Orem, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:02 a.m.
Like all of us, I have friends that are living a gay lifestyle. I still love them, but do not condone their choice of lifestyle. However, I am deeply disappointed that Senator Lee and others would vote to deny them their civil rights as fellow citizens. Senator Lee just lost much respect from me.
TopDaddy Hooper, UTNov. 8, 2013 10:02 a.m.
@ Ranch Hand - "Religion is a choice, sexuality is not". Sexual orientation is not a choice (at least so far as we know), however sexual behavior is. Giving in to one's base desires doesn't make the behavior right, no matter how loudly one might proclaim that it is. With that said, just because some choose to engage in homosexual behavior does not give any of us the right to treat them with any less respect or dignity. Having friends and family (a sister and cousin) who are gay I can tell you first hand that the best thing you can do is love the person no matter what.
tylert73 West Valley, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:53 a.m.
Mark- You are right, the government ALLOWS you to run a business. But I don't get a license from the federal government. I get one from my LOCAL city or county government, which has anti-discrimination laws already. No it isnt a "private action," but it certainly isn't a federal one either. Some Democrat from Missouri, or even a Republican from Idaho, should not have a say how the business, my LOCAL GOVERNMENT licenses me for, is run. People seem to misunderstand the fundamental importance of local government vs. federal government. "Government" isn't just one big entity.
Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00Nov. 8, 2013 9:48 a.m.
3rd try....
I remember when members where excommunicated simply for being gay.
Now being gay is not the reason, but action is.
I know many gay and lesbian members who are temple worthy and hold church callings.
Senator Reid is correct,
The church has changed it's position over time.
Ranch Here, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:43 a.m.
The ONLY people your church has any say over what they do is the MEMBERS of your church. NOBODY else is obligated to adhere to your rules. Don't approve? Don't engage. In other words, MYOB.
Canyontreker TAYLORSVILLE, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:41 a.m.
Everybody is now in a protected class except the straight white male.
tylert73 West Valley, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:39 a.m.
thinksIthink- God never said being black was sinful. Therefore, when the time was right He included black men in the Priesthood. However, homosexual behavior has always been a sin. HUGE difference and not even comparable.
vance SALT LAKE CITY, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:31 a.m.
My thoughts are. Where and when has it become the Federal Government's job to tell a business owner, apartment owner, or any private ownership who does not use government funding, how they must, and want, to run their business. The owner is responsible for all of his own expenses whether there is a profit or a loss. He suffers the responsibility and consequences for the profits of his business, NOT the Federal Government. Heaven knows the Federal Government is an expert at running businesses, right? If the owner pays the tab, he makes all the decisions within the bounds of our Original Constitution. Remember that old dusty document?
Lone Eagle Aurora, CONov. 8, 2013 9:29 a.m.
So being "gay" means you are attracted to someone of the same sex (presumably applies to men only as there is another term for women who have same sex attraction)? I always thought it was the homosexual act that made one "gay." Having the attraction is one thing (and can reasonably be genetic), acting on it is something else completely and is completely by choice. It is the act that is disciplined and not the attraction.
As for the scout thing: why is it OK for boys who have same sex attraction to camp in the same tent, but not OK for a boy and girl who are opposite sex attracted?
NT SomewhereIn, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:26 a.m.
"The senior leadership of the LDS church grew up in another era."
True, God became God before we became His offspring. And, I do not anticipate God changing His views and doctrine anytime soon...actually ever.
If you plan to see any evolution in doctrine in the near future or in the rest of your lifetime, let me just put your heart at ease - aint gonna happen.
Also, tolerance as you and others interpret it seems to have a much broader definition. It does not extend to "approval" - period. (And, that is not an Obama "period" there)
Culbear Bountiful, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:26 a.m.
@Ranch Hand
and others
For the record the church does not speak against a persons sexuality, but a persons sexual behavior. Even though I may not wholeheartedly agree with your view of unchangeable sexuality (which science has proven to be untrue (at least in some regard), its what one does with what one has that is important, not what one starts with etc.
mark Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:11 a.m.
"You have the right to do what you want in your own bedroom. . . "
This is true, as long as what you want to do is between consenting adults. These are private actions.
". . . but I have the right to employ who I want without it being a crime."
This is not true. It IS a crime in this country to discriminate against people in the workforce based on gender, ethnicity, and religion. The difference is that owning a business is NOT a private action. The community, through the government ALLOWS you to own a business. Don't believe me? You need a license to run a business. This is the community giving you permission to run a business. Try to run a business without a license, or without following building or fire codes, or zoning ordinances. Or hiring practices. Or try to run a business that society has deemed that you can't, such as a brothel, or opium den.
An orderly society has a basic interest in regulating businesses, and this does NOT infringe on your freedoms or liberty.
Oh, and your comment about the miniskirt and fishnets is nonsense. You CAN have a dress code in your business.
JLFuller Boise, IDNov. 8, 2013 9:11 a.m.
I have to wonder whether there is a nice toasty place next to the big fire for the good senators who voted for ENDA. Of course all those who favor the flagrant violation of God's law will be howling like the very devil over my thinking here.
Lone Eagle Aurora, CONov. 8, 2013 9:09 a.m.
All the legislation in the world will not change a foundation doctrine. It looks like Reid is getting more and more out of touch with his purported religion.
bandersen Saint George, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:07 a.m.
Thank God for Senator Lee! This is a states rights issue, just like every other issue that the Democrats and Republicans don't understand. They don't understand because they don't like liberty. Where are the independent minded people out there that believe in freedom and liberty? The power to control and dominate and patronize is alive and well in the Democratic and Republican followers, as well as Harry Reid. Someday the light will turn on in Harry Reid's life, most likely when he reaches the other side!
Dante Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 9:04 a.m.
Harry Reid has chosen life standards I have tried to reject for myself. It saddens me that he continuously diminishes the LDS faith in the eyes of the American public, but it doesn't make me think any less of him. Although I believe he is compulsively dishonest in his public statements and demeanor, I accept Senator Reid as a regular human being, as my brother who has chosen a different path.
Wastintime Los Angeles, CANov. 8, 2013 9:01 a.m.
I'm confused. If my wife dies and I marry another (in the temple) do you Mormons believe that I am married to one of them or both of them? Wouldn't the belief that marriage be between A man and A woman require me to divorce the first before marrying the second?
atl134 Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 8:49 a.m.
Well... the LDS church did work with Salt Lake City when it came to their non-discrimination bill... that was something new. They also didn't get involved in the Maine, Maryland, and Washington ballot initiative fights like they did Prop 8.
Walt Nicholes Orem, UTNov. 8, 2013 8:45 a.m.
I recall the last line of a poem: "first we pity, then endure, then embrace."
Razzle2 Bluffdale, UTNov. 8, 2013 8:43 a.m.
Politico didn't mention marriage. Harry Reid didn't mention marriage. The Church statement re-stated the position on marriage.
Reid was talking about discrimination versus tolerance in the workplace. This is probably the only time I agree with Reid's statement.
Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00Nov. 8, 2013 8:42 a.m.
I remember when someone could be excommunicated just for being gay.
Now it is changed to just committing the act.
I know many Gay and Lesbian Mormons who not only have Temple Recommends,
but also have Church Callings.
That didn't used to be the case.
So - Senator Reid is right.
FYI - The LDS church supported similar local laws protecting LGBTs in Utah,
but the Utah State Legislature (mostly Mormons) voted against it.
BTW - I was glad the DN at least reported that the majority 2/3s of the LDS Senators voted FOR the ENDA,
while the minority 1/3 voted against it.
Coach Biff Lehi, UTNov. 8, 2013 8:38 a.m.
You've made that statement for years on this board and others. Show me "scientific proof".
Oatmeal Woods Cross, UTNov. 8, 2013 8:33 a.m.
@ The Walker:
1) I have LDS frineds and acquaintances all over the country and I've never heard of anyone being threatened with excommunication or excommunicated for supporting same-sex marriage.
2) I think the many church leaders and members support anti-discrimination laws of many types.
3) The BSA still does not accept gay leaders. The recent discussion was about young teens (scouts), and sexual orientation should not even be a question directed at kids.
4) LDS members need to grow up become politically active in a variety of ways, and in both parties. There are a variety of important issues in politics at this time.
5) How does one "support" same-sex marriages? By acknowledging that they exist in this country? By refusing to demean or alienate those who do? I think most LDS members understand that we respectfully disagree with the direction society has taken, but we will remember that these people are human beings and demand that they are respected as human beings by their employers and our political system.
6) I don't remember same-sex marriage being a question one had to answer to gain a temple recommend.
Craig Clark Boulder, CONov. 8, 2013 8:12 a.m.
The LDS Church has not made any change in position but in its most recent statements on the matter I've sensed a definite change in tone that seems to reflect how the entire country has been changing its attitudes toward issues of gay rights. I welcome the trend towards more enlightened thinking on something we once were too reluctant to even talk about.
Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00Nov. 8, 2013 8:03 a.m.
Senator Reid is correct -- the LDS Church has indeed changed it's position of LGBT "rights" over time.
It used to be LDS members were automatically excommunicated for "being" gay.
Now, it is only acting on that comes into question.
Gay and Lesbians even hold Temple Recommends and serve in Callings now.
The LDS Church backed LGBT non-discrimination laws in Utah,
the Utah Legislature chose to ignore the Church.
The Church supports "traditional marriage",
but has never issued any statements regarding awarding "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships".
As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney [also LDS] signed Gay Marriage into law.
I'm glad the DN reported that of the 6 U.S. Senators - the majority 2/3s of them signed the ENDA Law.
while the minority 1/3 of the Senators [Lee and Crapo] -- did not.
The naysayers are wrong.
Senator Reid is right, once again.
mdp Bountiful, utahNov. 8, 2013 7:57 a.m.
Gee, I didnt know that Harry Reid is now the prophet, must have missed that minor detail.
Church member North Salt Lake, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:55 a.m.
to: Play by the Rules
Are you sure his views haven't changed?? How do you know.
He changed his views on polygamy and the priesthood.
DWill Springville, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:46 a.m.
Hope Everyone realizes that at the start of the article it states that "politico" REPORTED that Sen Reid said this. Seems to me that the statement the church is releasing refutes the article than it does Sen Reid.
Tad TOOELE, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:42 a.m.
God makes her own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with any particular human being or even with a publicly stated church position...
Be A Voice For Good Stansbury Park, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:40 a.m.
"On the question of same-sex marriage... If it is being suggested that the church's doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.
'...traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.'"
- LDS Church
I absolutely Agree!
Now regarding Reid's statement, he is a Senator and has no authority to make statements in behalf the LDS church. His position on this subject has obviously changed, but most faithful members of the church (those who listens to a Prophet), views have not changed.
JCapetian Buffalo, NYNov. 8, 2013 7:34 a.m.
I have family members, friends, and coworkers who live a heterosexual lifestyle and I'm just as accepting of them as regular human beings as any of my other family members, friends, and coworkers. It saddens me that they've chosen that lifestyle, but it doesn't make me think any less of them.
Bill McGee Alpine, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:30 a.m.
Brigham Young taught that anyone refusing to enter into plural marriage would be damned, and would live through eternity as the servant of those who obeyed that law. Later, after the priesthood was extended to all men, mixed race couples were refused the right to marry in the temple. So, yes, the Church's position on marriage has changed several times. Hard line stances taken by the church on many "foundational" and "core" doctrines have changed over time, despite official pronouncements and pulpit-thumping speeches by the Brethren declaring that they wouldn't. There is no reason to believe that this time is any different. (I would suggest to folks pointing to the Proclamation on The Family to prove their point, that it is not scripture - as Elder Packer found out after his talk in the October 2010 General Conference.)
Furthermore, the opinions of the members HAVE already changed. And as happened repeatedly in the past, it will simply take some time for the Brethren to catch up. I would like to remind people that we were literally nearly the last people on earth to extend equality to Blacks, much to our shame.
Dixie Dan Saint George, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:30 a.m.
It took until 1978, for the LDS Church to stop preaching that Blacks were a cursed race and second class citizens. Given time, the church may also change its position on gay marriage. BTW, how many gay/lesbian members hold leadership positions in Utah? How about nationwide?
Carol P. Warnick Ephraim, UtahNov. 8, 2013 7:20 a.m.
Harry Reid needs to get his information correct before making a statement for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. Our church has always been compassionate to people's needs but stands firm on our beliefs and marriage between a man and a woman is God's plan.
David Centerville, UTNov. 8, 2013 7:19 a.m.
LDS church leaders (1st Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve) make decisions based on revelation from God. The process of seeking, receiving, recognizing, & following revelation is a life-long process for members of the LDS church. These senior leaders of the church are well practiced & experienced in the process.
As such, I can't understand your reasoning that these leaders grew up in another era. Because they are old, with "outdated" cultural viewpoints (according to your implication) there won't be any change in the church's position on gays & gay marriage until a younger, more up-to-date group of members transitions into church hierarchy (again, according to your implication).
Are you also implying that these younger, future, much hoped-for by the gay community, anticipated church leaders will change God's mind on the foundational doctrines & commandments so that revelation will be received to enact the change you refer to?
If this is widely believed, then church members have a ways to go toward understanding the principles of revelation & the ways of God.
Frozen Chosen Savage, MNNov. 8, 2013 7:13 a.m.
This is a bad law which will allow bad employees another excuse to sue their employer for "discrimination" when the reason they were fired isn't because they are gay, it was because they didn't do their job.
People that don't own a business don't realize how the government is squeezing the life out of companies through all of these crushing regulations.
RBB Sandy, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:57 a.m.
Unfortunately it all boils down to the loss of freedom. You have the right to do what you want in your own bedroom, but I have the right to employ who I want without it being a crime. I may not want my salesman Mike to suddenly show up at my customer's office in a miniskirt and fishnet stockings as Mandy. Nor do I want Mandy in the women's restroon where "she" may make the women in the office uncomfortable.
Freedom is a two way street. You are free to do what you want and I am free not to associate with you. This law a just another tool not only to force tolerance, but to force acceptance. That Senator Hatch supoorted this bill shows just how little he believes in liberty.
BrokeCurmudgeon Riverton, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:53 a.m.
"God's views have not changed."??? It is good to know that God leaves comments on the Deseret News site. I think not!
ldsGA_VET Perry, GANov. 8, 2013 6:46 a.m.
TMR and others, the Church was responding to media inquiries not Mr Reid and his comments.
TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:37 a.m.
As of late, the LDS has done nothing to stem the growing tide of immorality surrounding gay rights, and the members of the church cannot help but wonder where the Church REALLY stands on gay rights. In the last 2 years the LDS church has
1) dropped the threat of excommunication for supporting same-sex marriage
2) endorsed laws supporting anti-discrimination against individuals living a homosexual lifestyle
3) continued to support the Boy Scouts of America after allowing opening gay members into their ranks
4) failed to organize members in any of the 5 states where same-sex marriage issues were on the ballot
5) failed to take action when Church leaders and temple workers are seen supporting same-sex marriages
6) failed to take action when Stake Presidents and their counselors give temple recommends to those members who are active supporters of same-sex marriage.
In light of these facts, I would have to agree with Harry Reid's statement.
Irony Guy Bountiful, UtahNov. 8, 2013 6:32 a.m.
Sen. Lee is the one who has parted ways with the values of charity and equity by opposing ENDA. I'm glad Sen. Reid stands firm for those values, which are far more fundamental than anything else (see I Cor. 13).
shabam Ogden, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:21 a.m.
Mormons want their cake and eat it too.. but they have to make a choice soon, just like the catholics did, before their members started leaving them too. being twenty years behind the times doesnt mean you are conservative, it just means you are not as fast or intelligent as others are.
Semi-Strong Louisville, KYNov. 8, 2013 6:20 a.m.
Those folks don't have the same national public stage that Senator Reid does.
Well said.
Say No to BO Mapleton, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:17 a.m.
Well, Harry has a point. The LDS church went out of its way to lend support to similar LOCAL legislation in Salt Lake City and County.
Like other GBLT issues, the national bill is nipping at religious liberty. Perhaps the church didn't count on the notion that church departments and universities would be compelled to hire openly gay applicants.
Dancing with a tiger is a dangerous game.
Really??? Kearns, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:14 a.m.
"On the question of same-sex marriage, the church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding."
What does that last part of the official comment from the church say? I hope more people will follow that counsel, because I see too many mean-spirited comments on these DN articles.
Esquire Springville, UTNov. 8, 2013 6:09 a.m.
It is stunning to me that any form of discrimination in the workplace should be tolerated for personal matters in an employee's private life. It is fundamentally wrong to enable such discrimination, regardless of your personal and religious views on the matter. The way I read Reid's comments, he is not saying the doctrine changed, just that views are evolving, and he is correct. For the Church to react is telling. And there is no reason why the Church should not endorse ENDA as a matter of human rights, toleration and a Christian attitude. The Church does not have to endorse these alternate lifestyles, but it could call for an end to discrimination in the workplace for all children of God. The Church missed an opportunity to do the right thing in this instance.
TA1 Alexandria, VANov. 8, 2013 6:05 a.m.
while I may not agree will all of Senator Reid's views - I 100% support his views on LGBT protections. In 50 years or less - it will be interesting to see what the views of the LDS Church are on the "rights" of the LGBT community. I thing some of the stauncher member will be shocked. This is a Church of continuing revelation.
randyclapper Elyria, OHNov. 8, 2013 6:02 a.m.
Um... with respect to what others are saying, as an LDS member in good standing, I have not seen any indication the the views of the membership of my faith have changed. Most likely, some have changed their views, but I would think that they would be in the minority. If one is truly a disciple of Christ, they would support all of Christ's teachings and doctrines, including that about traditional marriage. Love the people, but don't advocate their lifestyle as that path leads to sorrows in the eternities.
ThinksIThink SEATTLE, WANov. 8, 2013 5:29 a.m.
@ Play By The Rules,
God changed his views regarding blacks and their role in the LDS church. He may have changed his views regarding gay people too.
UtahBlueDevil Durham, NCNov. 8, 2013 5:21 a.m.
Kouger.....you are in a position to judge others spirituality.... really? Wow... what a responsibility you have accepted for your self.
As stated before.... members have modified their views. There are plenty who live life standards we choose not for ourselves. Accepting these "flawed" people does not mean we agree with their choices, but that we accept them as people, as brothers and sisters, who have chosen different paths.
It could be drinking, their dating standards, what they feel is acceptable and moral behavior, if they are tax cheats, how they treat their spouse or children, over eating, or spending too much time on the golf course, to being too focused on the obtaining the things of the world. We accept people, flaws and all....
RanchHand Huntsville, UTNov. 8, 2013 5:17 a.m.
@Truth Machine
"You know it is possible to accept the individual without condoning the lifestyle."
You are correct. I have family, friends and co-workers who are devout Mormons, and I love them unconditionally, while rejecting their "lifestyle".
(Religion is a choice, sexuality is not).
toosmartforyou Farmington, UTNov. 8, 2013 2:14 a.m.
I wonder who whispered in Harry's ear this time. (Last time it was that Mitt didn't pay any taxes.) Harry would have more credibility if he just spoke for "Harry Reid" and not for everyone else. Hopefully the good folks in Nevada will give him the opportunity to return to Lighthouse, NV and write a book about his experiences in government.
marxist Salt Lake City, UTNov. 8, 2013 12:53 a.m.
The views of LDS regarding both gays and race have changed a great deal from the bad old days of the 50's and 60's.
cjb Bountiful, UTNov. 8, 2013 12:51 a.m.
Re bro Joseph
Why would the LDS church need to comment if people buy guns and ammunition to defend their families other than to say defense of our families is something we should be concerned with.
zeep ,Nov. 8, 2013 12:01 a.m.
Once again, this is a matter that should have been left to the states to decide. Get the feds out of out state business.
From Ted's Head Orem, UTNov. 7, 2013 11:40 p.m.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change."
Not a lot of ambiguity in THAT statement.
I've got no problem with Reid stating that the attitudes of LDS Church members is changing in regards to gays. It's true. And it's a wonderful opportunity for LDS Church members to become more Christian in their behavior as society at large changes its attitude towards behavior that heretofore was kept out of the public eye.
Yet nowhere is it suggested that LDS Church members are en masse supporting gay marriage. Sure, there are some who do and with great fervor hope and believe that the LDS Church will drop their public opposition to gay marriage, with even a small fraction of the faction hoping for eventual authorized gay marriage temple sealings.
Mormon Democrats present a challenge to many Utah Republican Mormons in that they seem "traitorous" to LDS cultural norms. Another opportunity for folks to go introspective and consider why they believe what they believe.
Maybe they should learn to love the Democrat but hate the Party?
Truth Machine Salt Lake City, UTNov. 7, 2013 10:48 p.m.
"Reid is accurately observing that, doctrine or not, church members are increasingly accepting their LGBT family members, friends, coworkers and neighbors as regular human beings."
You know it is possible to accept the individual without condoning the lifestyle.
I have family members, friends, and coworkers who live a LGBT lifestyle and I'm just as accepting of them as regular human beings as any of my other family members, friends, and coworkers. It saddens me that they've chosen that lifestyle, but it doesn't make me think any less of them.
Jeff Temple City, CANov. 7, 2013 10:47 p.m.
I sincerely hope that no one seriously considers "play by the rules'" assertion that the Church and Harry Reid must part ways. I am proud that he is a Latter-day Saint; I am proud that the Church understands politics; I am proud that the Church publicly allows politicians to be who they are.
Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UTNov. 7, 2013 10:30 p.m.
Harry Reid did not say Church doctrine has changed, but that "views" change. Indeed, less condemnation, more understanding. In the international perspective, the church clearly moves cautiously and adapts its rhetoric in order not to jeopardize missionary work. Harry Reid has proven to be a great help in that perspective. In the "Mormon Moment" in 2012 Church PR frequently referred to him to counterbalance the impression that the church is too right-wing.
Blue Salt Lake City, UTNov. 7, 2013 10:26 p.m.
Reid is accurately observing that, doctrine or not, church members are increasingly accepting their LGBT family members, friends, coworkers and neighbors as regular human beings.
play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UTNov. 7, 2013 10:22 p.m.
God's views have not changed.
TMR Los Angeles, CANov. 7, 2013 10:14 p.m.
Senator Reid is correct: the church and its members "views" have changed. No question about it. A response that the "doctrine" has not changed does not refute Reid's point. There is a difference.
play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UTNov. 7, 2013 10:09 p.m.
If the church wants to maintain any credibility being gained by devout followers of Christ they are going to have to part ways with Harry Reid. He makes up his own doctrine and picks and chooses what the church stands for and then presents it as doctrine.


text:
The trademark MOLESKINE is more and more frequently used on the net in various ways.
We are pleased and proud of this because this is the indication of the interest and passion that our trademark can create. However, people using this trademark must be aware of the fact that MOLESKINE is a trademark registered by Moleskine SpA and that it cannot be used without following some precise rules.
MOLESKINE is a trademark registered worldwide by Moleskine SpA, located in Milan, Viale Stelvio No. 66, 20159 - Italy.
We would be happy to allow free use of the same to all those people who find in the name Moleskine a deep connection with their way of being and acting. However Moleskine's story and characteristics, together with the tradition which has been accompanying it from many years, require a very careful evaluation of every single situation.
Through its trademark, Moleskine wants to guarantee the quality which distinguishes its products and the coherence with its values and philosophy. For this reason, we ask all those people who want to use the name and/or the trademark Moleskine in the net to send us their request. Each request will be valued carefully by us and will receive a reply.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
JB Hi-Fi rolls out own digital music service NOW
Australian tunes in to the high street
Gadget house JB HiFi is extending its digital footprint with a music subscription service.
Its NOW brand, launched in beta on December 13, claims digital licences to over 10 million songs, with discovery and social media/community plugins. The retailer said that it kicked off with over 100,000 artists and 3 million songs.
"Tens of thousands of tracks are being added daily and it is expected that we will sign even more licence deals over the coming months adding further to the repertoire by early next year," the company said.
While currently web centric a NOW smartphone and tablet app for Apple iOS, Android and Windows devices is slated to be launched early next year.
"JB Hi-Fi NOW is set to be a game-changer for the music industry here in Australia and will change the way that we listen to and enjoy music. JB Hi-Fi NOW is another example of our continued focus on innovation and emerging technologies" said JB Hi-Fi CEO Terry Smart.
The Beta service is being offered on a one month free trial to prospective customers. Paid service subscriptions start at $AU6.67 a month based on a 12 month subscription, which offers unlimited access. Other packages offered include $AU25 for a three month subscription, or $AU50 for six months.
On The Register's first inspection the site is slow and a little clunky but has all the elements of a Spotify-styled service.
JB recently attracted the usual labels of "grey marketer" when it launched its own parallel import service, allowing customers to place offshore orders for a range of digital cameras, including Nikon and Canon products. ®


text:
June 29, 1931 - September 14, 2013
Shohola, PA
George H. Ness, Jr., 82, of Shohola, PA, passed away September 14, 2013 at home, surrounded by family. He was a retired carpenter for Local Union 157, New York, NY. George was a U.S. Navy Korean War veteran serving on the USS Kimberly, a member of the Mt. Laurel VFW Post # 8612, Milford, PA and an avid fisherman.
The son of the late George and Fernanda (Olsen) Ness, Sr., he was born June 29, 1931 in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY. He was married to Constance M. (Dombroski) Ness.
Survivors include his wife, Connie; daughter, Christine Ness Doran and her husband, Roger; son, William G. Ness and his wife, Donna; two grandchildren: Ryan and Kristen Ness; niece, Debra White and nephew, Steven O'Connell. He was predeceased by his sister, Ann O'Connell.
Friends may call at Stroyan Funeral Home, 405 West Harford St., Milford, PA (www.stroyanfuneralhome.com) on Wednesday, September 18th, from 2 to 4 and 7 to 8 p.m. Funeral Services will be held at the funeral home on Wednesday, September 18th, at 8 p.m., with Rev. Donald Beck officiating. Burial will take place at German Hill Cemetery, 132 German Hill Rd., Shohola, PA on Saturday September 21st, at 12 p.m.
In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be made to Karen Ann Quinlan Hospice, 99 Sparta Ave., Newton, NJ 07860.


text:
Reviewed by Maria S. (age 9)
I really liked the book because of the way the author wrote it. She wrote in the style of a real diary! There were no pictures. My favorite part was when Catherine and Snow Hunter thought they would get married, because she was only thirteen! I thought Snow Hunter was funny and caring because he was so nice to Catherine!
I recommend this book to 4th grade and up because it is very long and has big words. You will like this book if you like surprises and twists. People who like this time in history (1700's) will enjoy this book.