Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Harry Reid in the Salt Lake Tribune
There is an article on the controversial Mormon Harry Reid in the Salt Lake Tribune. He is a Democrat and some say that his views are at odds with what the church teaches.
Here are some comments made by readers of the article:
I'm praying for a Reid defeat in 2010. How's that for faith?
He's wrong on illegal aliens and has sold his soul to agribiz and the casinos in complete disregard for his oath of office.
So did Hatch and Bennett.
May they all suffer the fate of Chris Cannon.
I am an active member of the LDS church, and I respect Harry Reid tremendously. I think we need more like him in the church. It is the Gail Ruzika types that scare and disappoint me in our church.
There are 3 people who will stand condemned before God at the judgement bar for their inaction regarding Harry Reid's excommunication while Dingy Hairy oversees in large part the destruction of the greatest nation on the face of the earth:
His Stake President
The local Area Authority
I think there are a lot of Mormons that feel the same way Reid does regarding the prop 8 issue. I know I do and I know a lot of family that secretly does but wont speak out afraid of being labeled as a "bad mormon". What really boggles my mind is how so many could support the prop 8 bill and take away this basic right from someone who prefers the same sex.
I don't agree with Reid on most of his politics, but I support his freedom to have an opinion regardless of religion. It would be one thing if he expressed his opinions in sacrament meeting, but he is expressing his opinion in the political world. Last time I checked, church and state is suppose to be seperate, but many LDS faithful fail to see that.
Just a side note: I can't help but notice that nearly every Mormon I know and who posts on these message boards who has an issue with the church's position on SSM - the problem stems from a personal relationship they have with a gay person ... an aunt, a brother, etc. There is no up front doctrinal analysis to come to that position. Rather, they have a loved one who has chosen that lifestyle so then they go and try to use the scriptures to justify the position they have taken. The scriptures are certainly an open book with lots of room for private interpretation. I can use the Book of Mormon to justify murder if I look at the experiences of Nephi and Teancum (who both killed men while they were unconscious) and others. But it still doesn't justify murder.
So if you are being honest with yourselves, can you honestly say that you came to your viewpoint after an open-minded analysis of God's revealed word before you were ever affected personally or did you come to your position after you were affected personally and you have since found sources to justify your newly gained pre-disposition of sympathy for your loved one?
What say you?