Church leaders counsel members after same-sex marriage decision in the U.S.

The Church has issued the following information at the on-line Newsroom:

June 29, 2015
TO: General Authorities; General Auxiliary Presidencies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Area Seventies; Temple, Stake Mission and District Presidencies; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. The statement also pertains to the situation in Canada. Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.

Also included is background material which may be helpful in answering questions that arise.

Stake presidents are asked to see that bishops receive copies of this letter and the enclosures.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

June 29, 2015
Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation.

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ< and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite all to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths God established in the beginning, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future. THE COUNCIL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise. For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐ Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014). What is the Church’s Policy on Homosexual Relations? “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. “If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. “While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6). Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom? Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference). How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian? Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference). What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject? “Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities. “If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

38 thoughts on “Church leaders counsel members after same-sex marriage decision in the U.S.

  1. In our Stake Conference this past weekend the final talk, given by the Stake President, concluded with this message, if in a somewhat abridged but unequivocal form. I was pleased to hear the strong affirmation of this policy by local leaders.

  2. Wow. For some reason I am reminded of Reynolds entering into the institution of plural marriage for the express purpose of becoming the subject of a Supreme Court case testing the constitutional right of the Church to perform marriages uniting a man to more than one woman in mortality.

    I am also reminded of Daniel throwing open the coverings of his window and kneeling in prayer to His God, after law was passed prohibiting Darius’ subjects from worshiping any other entity but the King.

    There’s definitely nothing lukewarm about this communication from the leaders of the LDS Church.

    Out of curiosity, have any other denominations taken such a firm and public and proactive stance?

  3. “firm and public and proactive stance?” It’s not a public stance. The public fight against SSM is over. It’s an internal fight to shore up the church against progressive forces within the church, not an external fight with the world.

  4. I’m with Nate on this one. This is for members. The church is drawing a line in the sand. Members are going to have to start decided which side of the line they stand on.

  5. Nate,

    As I learned many years ago when the sexual revolution was launched, there is nothing “progressive” about the new morality. It is just the old immorality. And, yes, the Church and especially the youth of the Church (and the world for that matter) need to be reminded (“shored up” as you put it) that sin still pays a wage (Romans 6:23). Lest anyone think the Church would prosper by going full rainbow, consider the precipitous decline of The Episcopal Church (TEC) meeting in Salt Lake City this week. “According to TEC’s most recent statistics, the Church’s Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) has dropped significantly. In 2003, the year that Gene Robinson was consecrated as the world’s first openly gay, partnered bishop, the Episcopal Church’s ASA stood at 858,598 persons. 10 years later, in 2013, this figure had dropped to 657,102 persons, a decline of nearly 200,000 church goers.” See

    Since religion in general is not merely private, and Christianity specifically cannot be merely private (see, for example, Matt 28:19), this statement is not merely private even if the immediate audience is the Church membership in a Church setting. Yes, the statement is for Church members, but does anyone believe it will not be discussed outside of that setting?

    While the latest case is legally settled in the U.S. (until five future justices think of something new), the social, cultural, and moral issues will remain, just as they have with abortion. And most of the world’s population still lives with a heterosexual understanding of marriage both legally and culturally including virtually all of Asia, most of Eastern Europe, most of Africa, and large parts of Latin America, not to mention huge numbers of people, surely many tens of millions, with moral and conscience reservations where marriage has been redefined by the courts or other more democratic means.

    There will, of course, be consequences and external pressures brought against the Church and against our like-minded friends in other churches and faiths, the Chief Justice, no less, warned us of that. Rod Dreher, a prominent conservative author and blogger and an Eastern Orthodox as well as a small o orthodox Christian, makes keen observations here:

    See also


    See prominent and insightful Baptist leader Albert Mohler’s comments at

    Multiple opinions from a largely Catholic perspective can be found at

    We have lots of friends on this issue, even now. Many still respect Paul’s admonition not to be conformed to the world (Rom. 12:2). To echo many Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish leaders as well as our own leaders, much has changed legally in the U.S., yet nothing has changed morally or in God’s eternal plan.

  6. I read these other comments, but I don’t see anything in the op ed pieces that is sue worthy. Scornworthy, perhaps, if you don’t agree with viewpoints that disagree with the Obergefell decision or otherwise warn of possible negative consequences.

    But I see in the Church’s strong statement here an unequivocal stance inviting a clarification of the unresolved conflict between the Obergefell ruling and religious liberty. Lacking explicit clarification, there are all too many who will presume that “marriage equality” is equivalent to racial equality or gender equality, where organizations within the United States that attempted to maintain pre-ruling practices have been dismantled.

    To modify D&C 129:4, 8, “When a messenger from the Supreme Court comes saying he wishes to respect religious freedom, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you… If it be a deceiver posing as goodness incarnate, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and attempt to strip your liberties and protections from you; you may therefore detect him.”

  7. I’m a little worried about the last instructional information to bishops about members who have doctrinal questions. The admonition to make diligent effort, including prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers, seems to imply that in fact a member may get an “answer” that is different from the position of the church, and that that “answer” will be just as valid and acceptable as the position of the church. I’ve consistently seen comments by progressive members who proof text Uchtdorf and Chistofferson to support their agendas of inclusiveness, questioning, etc. I wish leaders had been a little more authoritative and basically said “you are free to have a doctrinal question, and you should pray and study it out, and you should receive confirmation of the church’s position. But, be aware that if your inspiration falls away from the church’s position, you may want to question your inspiration.” I know that won’t sit well with many. I want to have a big tent, and certainly don’t want to see disciplinary councils held every week. However, somehow members need to understand that coming to a different position, then advocating that position by supporting, agreeing with or affiliating with like minded individuals or groups that teach that position, can get your recommend taken away.

  8. I think the Church’s approach as it stands now allows for individuals to reach their own spiritually-based conclusions, rather than flat-out saying that your soul-searching, studied-out answers ought to align with our own. It is already implied that the choices laid before us are–either you support SSM or you don’t, with the clarification that if you are for it, it won’t jeopardize your church standing unless you actively espouse the SSM agenda. In the next two weeks, our leaders will use gentle persuasion by the Spirit (D&C 121:41-43, though I grant that leaders will not all convey the message in the same way) to demonstrate the correctness of the Church’s position. “If ye are not one, ye are not mine.”

  9. I agree that the target audience for this is church members. After all:

    “Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.”

    seems like a pretty clear hint that this is aimed at church members.

    Nevertheless, the fact that it was posted at Newsroom well before July 5 suggests the Church is happy to let the world know that this is what the members are being told.

    Judging from oral arguments presented before SCOTUS, I think the notice of revocation of tax-exempt status for Church schools has already been drafted and is just waiting the right moment to be delivered. That may not be until after the next election, though I wouldn’t count on it. I suspect everything the Church says on the topic between now and then will be written with this thought in the back of Elder Oaks’ mind.

  10. I think it is important to ponder this statement regarding homosexuality: “Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

    We are, in my opinion, a big tent church, and we want the entire world to come to Christ and be One with Him. However, there are those who “influence others” to directly contradict Church teachings, to speak out publicly on these issues and put themselves in direct opposition to the Church. Some of these people may face Church discipline for doing so. My advice to any people who have doubts about this policy is to discuss such things quietly with friends with a spirit of trying to understand the Church’s position. If, after sincere prayer and discussions with trusted friends, your bishop and your stake president, you cannot understand the Church’s position, my advice is to put it on a shelf and revisit the issue later while continuing to do you calling and performing Church duties. It is possible and in my opinion likely that you will understand the Church’s position with time if you continue to keep the commandments and follow the prophet. It seems directly contradictory to the Church’s position to spend a significant amount of your time announcing to the world how opposed you are to Church doctrine. Such a position will very likely lead to apostasy.

  11. Geoff B,

    Thank you.


    Here is a statement from a large group of evangelical leaders:

    and a statement from an evangelical who is even more outraged at the court:


    Each of us will eventually have to take a stand here, and it may come at a cost. Our stand for Christ, his Gospel, and his Church should be winsome and irenic, but it should not be weak, unsteady, or faltering.

  12. The purpose of encouraging people to pray and seek answers on their own is to help them get a testimony of what the Church teaches, not to suggest that alternate positions are acceptable.

  13. This is one of those times when a deep familiarity with the Book of Mormon is useful. In particular, it is useful to review the recantations of Sherem (Jacob 7:17-19) and Korihor (Alma 30: 53). There is also the case of Nehor, who recants under duress. This case of Nehor seems more of a type of what occurs when the members of the Church follow teachings that are not consistent with the gospel (see Alma 1):

    [Nehor] had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church…

    4 And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

    5 And it came to pass that he did teach these things so much that many did believe on his words, even so many that they began to support him and give him money.

    [Nehor kills Gideon for disagreeing with his apostate teachings. Nehor is brought before the Chief Judge and sentenced.]

    15 And it came to pass that they took him; and his name was Nehor; and they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death.

    16 Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the [heresy of Nehor]; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines…

    24 [T]he hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also many withdrew themselves from among them.

    25 Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with patience the persecution which was heaped upon them.

    We are responsible. And therefore I applaud the leaders of the Church for not abrogating our right to go to God Himself. If we go to God and have the plan of salvation and the beauty of the New and Everlasting Covenant confirmed in our hearts, then all is good. If we take it upon ourselves to assert our own will as God’s revelation, God will judge us. And the Church will be within its rights to cut us off, as has been done in the millennia prior to our time.

  14. Meg, good point. The other story worth considering is Alma the Younger and his repentance process. Note that one of his main areas of regret was that he had led others astray with his preaching against the Church.

  15. Hi Leo,

    Thank you for the links.

    I think that, due to the central organization of the LDS Church, we are most likely to be the religious organization appropriately tested, as we (unlike the other entities making a furor over the ruling) are likely deemed to be assailable, are a single entity with schools and charities and tithes and temples that can be (as it were) attacked in this culture war, and are speaking with one voice as an organization, not as a collection of individuals or disparate congregations.

    Given past “stuff” (Mormons cast as the baddies in Angels in America, Mormons cast as stupid bigots in The Book of Mormon musical, Mormons acting as the most coherent force supporting Prop 8 wresting married status from same gender marriages in California last decade), Mormons are seen as an organization to be taken down in this culture war.

    Ironically, the Mormon Church has a religiously acceptable “failure” option, where it would be possible for the Church to lose all tax exempt rights in the US and be told to open all its facilities in the US to marriage equality, and the Church could simply vacate performing such ordinances, etc., in the US.

    Not that I think the Mormon Church would lose in such a contest. But it’s always nice to know that even if the worst occurred, you have not been completely defeated.

  16. Meg,

    That would be quite a boost to foreign tourism.


    Just so. The Church leaders have gotten an answer from God, and are confident that the honest in heart will get the same answer.

    I have been surprised by my own reaction to all this, particularly since it’s not like I didn’t see this coming. It’s too long to do justice in a comments thread. Perhaps I’ll write it up as a guest post here, if y’all are interested, or over at Junior Ganymede, where I’ve guest-posted before.

  17. Idiat,

    There have been times when members arrived at different conclusions than “the Church” and they were vindicated many times over.

  18. Greg,

    I would modify your comment as follows:

    “There have been times when members arrived at different conclusions than “the Church” and were vindicated in their opinion.”

    Many times over is hyperbole. While it is true that one can have a different opinion, it is not usually opinions and thoughts that are the problem, but the actions arising from a decision to break with the Church over the opinions and thoughts that cause the true “problem.” Also, you presume that you have omniscient knowledge of all factors, claiming that these members were right to publicly document their different conclusions. I assume public documentation is part of the package, since if the different conclusion wasn’t documented, how would you know it occurred.

    If you are talking about things like the leadership promises made to the delayed handcart companies in 1856, I do not consider any random leader who opens their mouth to constitute “the Church.” Even in the matter of having a policy barring Blacks from obtaining the priesthood and associated blessings, you would have to ask God what good purpose might have been served by that policy before taking it upon yourself to declare all actions associated with that policy wrong.

    I prefer my mother’s frequent encomium: “All things work together to the good of those who love the Lord.” All things including, necessarily, terrible, crappy, wrong-headed stuff, not just blessings, sublime intelligence, and pure faith, hope, and charity.

  19. Greg, there have been billions of times when members arrived at different conclusions than God’s church and have suffered horribly for it. This is not a road I would encourage anybody to go down.

  20. IDIAT said, “I’m a little worried about the last instructional information to bishops about members who have doctrinal questions. . . .”

    This concern in interesting. Is it possible to be more “orthodox” than our leaders? I have seen a few people who have given responses giving their take on it, but I am not sure that’s appropriate in this forum. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve consist of men who know full well the meaning of words and are capable of saying exactly what they mean. If they wanted to say that disagreeing with the Church’s response will result in the loss of a recommend, they would have said it.

    I believe they are purposely leaving this up to local leaders, who hold proper keys, to make the decisions that will best help the local members.

  21. I had a feeling what I wrote wouldn’t “sit well with many.” Thanks for the thoughtful follow up and good points raised.

  22. With regard to the tax-exempt status of churches going away, it’s probably foolish to continue to count on said status remaining intact in perpetuity. It is, after all, just an agreement arranged between the government and corporations and individuals, subject to change at any time. God didn’t establish the exemption or participate in any covenants regarding the creation of said tax laws, so if they go away, they go away. I’m certainly no tax lawyer and don’t have a complete understanding of what the ramifications would be were the exemptions to be withdrawn, but if we’ve become all that reliant on them, maybe they should go away.

  23. Mark N.,

    Losing an income tax exemption might not be immediately catastrophic, since Church activities aren’t about generating a cash flow. However, in the longer run, the IRS could well get creative on what constitutes income and what constitutes expenses. Also, something like an undistributed profits tax could be imposed that would make it very difficult to accumulate cash for big projects like temple construction. Of course, these would probably have to affect all corporations to be legal (assuming that there is still any rule of law) but there is precedent, and apparently growing sentiment, for that as well. During the Great Depression, a 90% UPT was imposed that was one of the most boneheaded public policies to see the light of day in the 20th century.

    The loss of a property tax exemption is more likely to be immediately painful. Can you imagine what the property tax on Temple Square would be if some court decided that Salt Lake City could not continue exempting Temple Square from property taxes?

  24. Come to think of it, I just had a rather chilling thought on why the prophets engaged in a sudden rush to build temples in the last three decades or so.

  25. Hi Kent,

    The rush to build the temples would have been a combination of erecting temples closer to where people live or (as in Provo) building new temples because existing facilities were overloaded.

    The chilling thought might have to do with why we haven’t had continued announcements of new temples.

  26. Last I looked, the present rate of temple construction, about three or four announcements per year, is more in line with stake growth.

    The “temple rush” was, in my view, playing “catch up”, because prior, temple construction was not keeping pace with stake growth. Now that things have caught up, temple construction can go on more proportional to actual church growth (or stake growth, which is a more important overall statistic than number of baptized members.)

    I think it takes between six and ten stakes, depending on how spread out they are geographically and the size of the temple, to support a temple in the US.

    Additionally, temples generally start out not being utilized to capacity; but as nearby membership grows, utilization rates increase. The Louisville temple, to which district Iindianapolis belonged, reached capacity in approximately 10 years after opening.

    It was curious to me that Indianapolis was surrounded by five temples, several of which were in smaller Mormon populations, for years before we got our own. But I’m sure that the timing and location of temples is done very much in line with the Lord’s will.

  27. Re taxes and tax exemptions:

    The power to tax is the power to destroy, but I don’t see this becoming a problem in the Mormon core in the Intermountain West. It might become a problem in California. The Catholic Church might even be more vulnerable there than we are. Hard to say, though, and the attempt to take away tax exemptions might trigger a political backlash.

    As for taxes in general, I agree with Will Rogers: “It costs ten times more to govern us than it used to, and we are not governed one-tenth as good.”

  28. Remember that comment I made back in January about “believe what you want but stop voting against the happiness of other people”? Turns out, you can’t do that anymore.

    I can think of nothing sadder than being on the wrong side of history. “Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote!”, “Blacks shouldn’t be allowed to ride in the same part of the bus!” And now we have people STILL thinking it’s a month ago, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago fighting the joining of two people together. Once again, religion is being taught morality by people despite every believer’s claims of the reverse.

    Believe whatever the (literally) hell you want; it simply doesn’t matter anymore.

  29. Oddly enough, the Territory of Utah allowed women to vote long before the United States did. Those crazy religious people always on the wrong side of history.

    Eat drink and be merry, “for it simply doesn’t matter anymore.” That is truly the wrong side of history.

  30. Danielsan: The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Franks, Ottomans, Nazis, and Soviets all thought they, too, were on the right side of history and that those backwards Jehovah-worshippers were on their way out.

    Three thousand years later and all those secular powers are gone . . . but we’re still here. We outlasted them, we’ll outlast you.

  31. Question.
    I know that the scriptures teach that patience, longsuffering, forbearance, love and charity are virtues. No where do the scriptures say that tolerance is a virtue. IS it wise to use ambiguous non scriptural language whilst the liberals are using the same word to encourage all manner of abomination?

Comments are closed.