Deseret News | Mormon Media Observer: No 'backlash' for handcart pioneers and gays analogy

Reader comments
Mormon Media Observer: No 'backlash' for handcart pioneers and gays analogy

111 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Sleuth | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The news media has lost its way to the point of summoning vomitus ad infinitum in any decent, educated human being. The longer it wander about in its corrupt stupor and milieu of selective distortional bias, rudder’d by experimental, polemical, polarizing social engineering, it becomes disturbingly incredulous. It’s getting to the point that it’s not worth reading or listening to.

Otis Spurlock | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It sounds like the author of this story is upset because there is no backlash. That is certainly not representative of how Mormons should act.

dert | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

In Utah, everything is viewed by many groups, including the "non subjective" media, as either LDS or non LDS. Virtually every article written about sports, for example, includes comments that take a religious slant.

However, the media, on the whole, airs, writes, etc,.what they think will gain the greatest interest.

Comments continue below

JanSan | 8:16 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

You are very right!
I guess that it is another in the "sign of the times" catagory...
I think that we have all come to just expect that the news media is going to be unfair in things such as this.

Boo Hoo Hoo | 8:26 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Here we go again, playing the victim card. We poor Mormons are always being picked on. Boo Hoo Hoo.

media went out of its way | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It wasn't "the media" as much as it was Peggy Stack. She seems to enjoy writing with a poison pen when it comes to anything Mormon.

Peaceful Analogy | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The author misrepresents the intent of the protest. His statement "Advocates of same-sex marriage have taken one of the most sacred stories in LDS history and done violence to it." is overblown and false. The event had nothing to do with Gay Marriage or the political campaigns the LDS Church is participating in.

The hand cart protest was peaceful and about LDS reconciliation and inclusion with its own isolated members and their families. The invoked image of "bringing them in from the plains" was quite poignant, and I believe most reasonable LDS people and the media could relate to the analogy and appreciate the nuance.

It's irresponsible to inflame the passions around this debate by casually throwing around terms like "violence". Which may explain why the Dallin Oaks analogy was so jarring to minority and civil rights groups, and the international media.

Anonymous | 9:07 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The handcart can be seen as a system of extreme irony. Those pulling handcarts were traveling to a society that mucked the idea is marriage being between one man and one woman. Mormon leaders practiced polygamy. Brigham Young preached that marriage between one man and one woman was an abomination.

Are you even allowed the free speech to bring up this fact in this forum? I'm descended from three generations of Mormon polygamous. One ancestor of mine married a 15 year-old girl at 54.

I'm 56. As a man, I have nothing in common with a 15 year old girl. I would be discussed with myself for competing a girl this age sharing my bed. As a direct decedent of people who were Mormon leaders, in good standing, I'm most likely aiming to be censored here for writing these facts.

You don't see any irony here?

My2Cents | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

To the author,

Did you want a backlash? It sounds like you are a little disappointed that there wasn't one. Strange.

Not preoccupied | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Gay rights, Dalin Oaks' comments, LDS discrimination... it all boils down to one thing really, "nature vs. nurture."

Members of the LDS faith CAN become non-members.

African Americans CANNOT change their skin color, although some may try.

Sexuality is NOT chosen…unless one is bisexual.

So, are those against homosexual rights bisexual? It must be the case because choosing one’s sexuality would make sense to only them. Otherwise, they would accept that sexuality is established at birth, due to their own personal example, and the subsequent discrimination is a crime against their unchangeable nature. If one is not bisexual (having no choice), yet they still discriminate against homosexuality… well, what is that exactly?

It’s hypocrisy.

It’s non-empathy.

It’s a violation of “the golden rule.”

And most likely, it’s DENIAL - the denial of a TENDANCY.

So, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Oaks and all others out there who want to deny rights to homosexuals, are you repressed or just hypocrites?

to grow | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

you have to quit the victimhood mentality.

still poor analogy | 9:27 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As an active practicing/believing member of the church, I still think the analogy Elder Oaks used is in poor taste. I think we need to consider for a moment how others perceive the issue and why they see it the way they do. It doesn't take a lot of rationalizing or reasoning to see opposition to gay marriage as actually analogous to the struggle of the civil rights movement. It does take a lot of explanation and reasoning to see it the way Elder Oaks does. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, I'm just saying it helps to occasionally see things from other's point of view. Doing so would actually help to make progress rather than creating more friction.

Media Bias | 9:34 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The media just eats up this gay rights stuff. Of course they'll be biased to the GLTB crowd. Didn't you hear, they're the next civil rights movement.

Now homosexuals want the LDS church to change because certain mormons who failed in their struggle against SSA committed suicide. I have a mormon friend who just commited suicide after battling drug addiction his whole life, but I'm not petitioning the LDS church to change its stance on drug use. The standards exist to help people who struggle and anyone who commits suicide has a lot more going on than just a guilty conscience.

The GLTB community wants the LDS church to condone their amoral lifestyles. What's that we always hear about Mormons jamming their religion down other people's throats? Someone please explain how the hypocritical GLTB community's actions are not and attempt to jam their ideology down our throats? Can't they just respect my opinion that their lifestyle is immoral and harmful to society?

jackhp | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

My advice? Keep it up with the persecution complex hysteria. It's not endearing you to those outside your "faith" and it's certainly not helping you in your fight to deny civil rights to gay people.

Henry Drummond | 9:41 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The author seems to be under the impression that "backlashes" are manufactured by the media. His article begs the question of why this newspaper which is owned by the Church failed to manufacture an appropriate backlash against the gays who "dressed in pioneer garb, pulled a handcart and delivered a petition of reconciliation" to Church headquarter. Apparently Church owned KSL Radio and KSL Television didn't get the memo either.

I'm old enough to remember when African-Americans were murdered for trying to vote. Whites who supported the rights of African-Americans to vote were also murdered. These actions continued with the support of the majority of the white population in the South for decades while the federal government did nothing.

I can see where African American groups would find the analogy drawn by Elder Oaks to be inappropriate. It didn't require any help from the media.

I terms of the lack of a backlash against the gay pioneer analogy

Joe the Plumber | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

This was a very unchristian article. Jesus taught that we were to "turn the other cheek". I think most LDS readers will not agree with this article that calls for backlash. It is not the Mormon way.

sbc | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am commenting on a quote from the Tribune. Here is something from my point of view.

"and bring these gay brothers and sisters back into the fold."
Most, by a long shot, of people I know in the church have and do welcome someone that is gay, alcoholic, drug addict, etc. that are willing to try or not preach what we know is against the word or God.
Let me give a personal account that just happened I am a personal witness to.
I was teaching a man with the missionaries. This man completely believed Joseph was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God. He, however, could not grasp why we wouldn't baptize someone that wasn't willing to live the Word of wisdom. He bore a heartfelt testimony that the church should not withhold this blessing from those that aren't willing to live this commandment. Well, one week later, this man passed out while drunk and never regain consciousness.
Like stated above, Most of the members that I know personally would welcome anyone into the fold that is trying and not preaching against a prophet of God.

Give and take | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

You have to be able to take it, if you give it. You have to respect that discrimination goes both ways. If you're honest.

@Poor Analogy | 10:09 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Your comment is one of the best I've seen on this topic. Thanks for expressing it so well.

NMP | 10:16 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I believe it was my Lord and Savior that stated marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because someone says differently does not make it so. When is it wrong to tell the truth? What most of us tend to forget is that there really is a Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, really did die for us, to atone for our sins, and we will meet Them face to face one day and They, the only true Judges will judge us all. We need to keep our hearts and minds on Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. We are all brothers and sisters in this unique world that was created for us to come here and use the free agency that God gave us to choose right from wrong, but, when we choose wrong it doesn't make it right.

re :poor analogy | 10:34 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It's one thing to be an active practicing/believing member but it seems to be quite another to raise your arm to sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers , and Revelators. And to do this four times per year (twice at Gen Conf. and twice at Stake Conf.). How do YOU manage to be inciteful enough to pick and choose exactly when he is speaking under influence of the Spirit and when he is just another out-of-touch guy off the street. Sorta reminds me of the wife of a certain NFL Hall of fame QB who now is faced with having to tell her primary-age children they can no longer sing the song "follow the Prophet, he knows the way" because she herself no longer believes those very words.

Anonymous | 11:07 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Forget this story, what about the fact that no one's covering the Catholic churches in Maine taking up second collections during Mass to donate to the "Yes on 1" campaign?

Nothing against them, it's just an interesting story that no one has touched.

Oh yeah, let's not take jackhp's advice, please.

jackhp | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

NMP,
Why should others live THEIR lives based upon what YOU "believe"?

The simple truth is that allowing gay people to marry is not detrimental to you, your church or traditional marriage in any way whatsoever and therefore should not be restricted based simply on your bigoted religious teachings.

@9:27 | 11:26 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It is presumptuous, if not insulting, to assume that Elder Oaks (and others of my faith) make little effort to see things from the other point of view. It’s more likely that Elder Oaks has thought it through more thoroughly than you have. Your comment suggests to me that you are the one that is slow to see things from another’s point of view.

You refer to a need to create progress, but fail to see that “progress” means changing LDS doctrine to appease a group that has difficulty living up to God's teachings. A core doctrine of the LDS Church is that our leaders are guided by revelation from Jesus Christ. If you believe in that doctrine, you accept an apostle’s teachings and seek God’s help in understanding it. If you are not a believer inthat docrine, you are not a Ladder Day Saint. Instead, you pick and choose what teachings are acceptable to you, as if your own limited understanding is an adequetae filter, and then you criticize it.

I am left wondering why people who do not believe in core doctrines of the church, still call themselves members of it.

One sided media | 11:30 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The news media has always been one sided! They attack what they want and promote what they want. It has nothing to do with constructively providing "news" and information. It has nothing to do with getting the facts right - it's all about sensationalism and selling their story.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 11:40 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Face it, the LDS Church pejoratively label anyone who disagrees with them, from "liberals" to "Conservative's", from "straights to homosexuals", from "those on the right and those on the wrong", in a land founded on liberal thought. They verbally punish dissent in a land where dissent is traditionally welcomed and protected. So tell me, who is right, and, who is really wrong?.

PS: DN, not ever is my comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words, so I really don't need a "cheery-picker - PC Thought Police censor" working at DN to censor my posting's, and not post them, that's a no no in America and in my book as well. Thank you!.

John Pack Lambert | 11:41 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

This makes me embarrassed to be a Mormon.

Anonymous | 11:43 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"I believe it was my Lord and Savior that stated marriage is between a man and a woman."

When/where did he say that?

To - Sleuth | 11:49 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Next time in English please. You score blog points for stating your message in a way that the majority of readers actually understand not by who has the the highest Boggle score.

Richard | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I am sooo sick of this "Mormon Complex" GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!

jimp | 11:58 a.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I would first point out....the only arena in which Lord and God have any relevance in marriage, is in their religious services. Civil marriage is under the powers granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. and nowhere in that constitution is there a prohibition of marriage between same sex couples. Same as there are requirements to be married under religious law, and civil law, religious DOES NOT override civil law. Rejection of same sex marriage is not based in rational thinking but rather religious teachings, which in and of themselves are prejudicial...I stand by the Constitution and "equal rights for all the citizens" vs. religious teachings which are only for it's followers.

RE: NMP | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

A moral compass,..."and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee: "If any be blameless,the husband of one wife,[not wives or of a man]having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."(Titis 1:5,6)A general principal that applies to any violation of God's marriage law.
repeated in the N.T. some of the O.T. Saints violated this law.

Ironic | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It's interesting that our pioneer hand-cart ancestors also practiced a form of marriage that the majority of Americans did not agree with. The pioneers came to this valley to have equal rights and to be left alone in peace.

The pro-gay marriage group is doing exactly what these pioneers were trying to do.

Widespread abuse | 12:32 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Threats to commit violence - particularly on one's self unless someone does what you ask - is a very common example of abuse.

Why does the various-and-ever-changing abbreviation groups who demand that we all celebrate what happens in their bedrooms continue to commit mass abuse on Mormons? When will this abuse end? Will they seek counseling so as to prevent any future abuse?

Encouraged | 1:48 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As I speak with younger Mormons, I am encouraged to hear they are much more tolorant than their parents and grandparents.
Unfortunately, it will take time, possibly the passing of many of the older LDS Elites, until we see a more
tolorant and diverse LDS culture.
Recall how polygamy was abolished(?) and Black Men were accepted as equals(?).
I really am trying here, folks

Re: John Pack Lambert | 1:56 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Everybody knows you're not really JPL, so please stop pretending you are on every single LDS thread. It's getting really old. What are you, 12?

Anonymous | 2:04 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

As a member of that younger generation Encouraged was talking about (I'm in my 20s), let me say this: I have no animosity toward gays. Some of my closest friends over the years have been gay, and I love them very much. They're wonderful people.

I also know what it's like to struggle with something so deep you feel like it's a part of you, that you'll never be able to change or stop it. And I also know that while you may not ever be able to fully purge it from your system, at least you can learn to control it and slowly overcome it.

I have never asked the LDS church to change its doctrines to suit my desires, because one of the very first doctrines that we learn in the church is that the natural man is an enemy to God. It's our job here on Earth to learn to control ourselves, to control our desires, and to submit ourselves to the will of the Father, no matter how difficult that may be.

I sympathize with gays, but I don't agree with them.

To Encouraged | 2:10 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Polygamy and giving the Priesthood to the black men in the church were not a matters of intolerance or of the older generation passing away and the younger people voting for change.

If you don't believe in continuing revelation, and you don't believe that earnest prayer and fasting brings results, and you don't believe that the laws of God are unchanging, even though some of the practices of the church may change, I don't understand why you belong to the church. Those are some of our core beliefs.

It was never a sin to be black, and it's never a sin to follow the commandments of God, no matter how popular or unpopular they happen to be at the time.

What you're "trying" to do here is convince members of the church that the prophets and the apostles are not really prophets, seers and revelators, but that they set doctrine according to their own whims and desires. That's not cool, buddy, and it's also not true.

Free to choose | 3:18 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The statement “religious DOES NOT override civil law” is not necessary true (1st amendment). Nevertheless, under federal and state constitutions popular sovereignty does override civil law (as witnessed in California and Maine).

Nor is the statement “religious teachings which are only for it's followers” true. Under the constitution all people, religious or otherwise, have the right to express their opinion in public.

Even if one doesn’t believe in a [religious] law of chastity. Under the constitution (as Elder Oaks pointed out) the call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification; citizens are free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. And any group, win or lose, have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Most virtues in the constitution taken to the extreme collide. But ultimately we the people have the sovereignty to decide which virtues trump which under certain circumstances.

socal Gal | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Ironic | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009 wrote,

"It's interesting that our pioneer hand-cart ancestors also practiced a form of marriage that the majority of Americans did not agree with. The pioneers came to this valley to have equal rights and to be left alone in peace.

The pro-gay marriage group is doing exactly what these pioneers were trying to do."

I agree 100%. Why can't the author see this glaring fact too?

Re: socal Gal | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

"Why can't the author see this glaring fact too?"

Because it's not a fact, glaring or otherwise. It's your OPINION. Two very, very different things.

socal Gal | 4:26 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

To Re: socal Gal 3:45 p.m.,

It's not a fact that our pioneer hand-cart ancestors also practiced a form of marriage that the majority of Americans did not agree with? It's not a fact that the pioneers came to this valley to have equal rights and to be left alone in peace?

Please tell me what the facts are.

JSM | 5:20 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Those who truly love all will help keep homosexuals free. Marriage legally enforces lifestyle. Homosexuals are free to be monogamous, and, in a much more limited way, so are polygamists, and siblings, etc. (they are jailed, no tax funded pride, promotion in textbooks, etc
). Humanity generally feels that consenting adult polygamists and certain other relationships are wrong, and these don’t have the right to marry, no matter how in love they are, and possibly without supportive studies. I feel this “One Woman” limitation helps, rather than hurts them. Homosexuals usually agree that polygamists should not marry, regardless of how much they love. Yet when they produce children it could be argued that governments have a legitimate interest in legally enforcing polygamy, but there is no reason to enforce homosexuality (pressure hospitals for visitation rights, vandalize the White House for tax breaks, etc.). I love my homosexual family members, and so I would never legally enforce their lifestyle. It does not harm them to be unmarried. It probably harms them to be married (if studies are any indication). Promoting homosexuality harms them and all.

In all due respect | 5:22 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It is some people’s opinion equal rights are denied because marriage is a right rather than a privilege.

It is some people’s opinion that the peace the pioneer’s sot from suffering mob persecution, a state extermination order, being driven off their land, and burying family members on a long trek is the same peace sot from suffering in fair constitutional voting contest.

Re: socal Gal | 5:53 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

It's not a fact that the pro-gay crowd are doing the same thing under the same circumstances that the pioneers did. That's just your opinion.

For a lot of us, their mimicking the handcart companies is tasteless mockery.

Anonymous | 6:36 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

You seem to assume ALL those Mormons who treked across country were strictly heterosexual, I can assure you are MISTAKEN. Just as LDS have gay and lesbian children, you also have gay and lesbian ancestors.

Just a thought... | 7:17 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Marriage has a long history in the religious world. It has become so ingrained in the social fabric of the people of the nation, and indeed of the world, that the benefits of marriage to society at large became apparent. Because this religious rite had so many secular benefits, it became recognized by the secular world, and became subject to governmental definition and regulation.

JSM | 7:47 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

Haters posting here sometimes remind me of Ahmadinejad, ranting about how racist America is. Yet he can’t see that he is full of hatred himself, against a minority religious group (Jews). And, to really drive his point home, that hating America is PC, he might even dig up some statements by past American Founding Fathers who had slaves and were racist, while overlooking the fact that many Americans are black, and many white Americans and Founding Fathers were very pro-black, and were even killed or tarred and feathered, etc, for their feelings. And, to certain closed minds his point would be perfectly valid. Perhaps because it makes them feel so much better about their own hatred, which they cannot see or acknowledge and if an LDS points it out it is simply being disrespectful or whining.

Shawn | 8:04 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

I think it's funny that the "Mormon Media Observer" is crying for unbiased news coverage for Mormons, and yet it's so littered with bias toward the Mormon church it cannot even be taken seriously. Pot calling the kettle black?

120 years must be a long time | 8:36 p.m. Nov. 7, 2009

The LDS Church spent decades trying to convince non-Mormon Americans that marriage practices were a personal/religious matter and that the government had no right to impose its will to limit what Mormons considered a sacred right--to conduct marriage as as they pleased, even though plural marriage was considered by the general population to be an abomination. And now? What argument will Mormons use if a revelation comes tomorrow that instructs members of the Church to start practicing plural marriage again? There is nothing in LDS doctrine that would preclude re-introducing polygamy. But what principle would Mormons invoke if they needed to have these plural marriages recognized?

Just a thought.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.