Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remind its leadership to steer clear of politics
June 29th, 2011
03:39 PM ET

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remind its leadership to steer clear of politics

By Padmananda Rama, CNN

(CNN)– The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) is reminding its leaders to stay away from endorsing political candidates or offering political statements.

In a letter dated June 16. LDS President Thomas S. Monson provided LDS members with "further clarification of the church's position on political neutrality."

The letter comes at the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign in which two Republican contenders - former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman - both have strong affiliations with the Mormon church.

"General officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns," read an excerpt from the letter posted on the LDS official website. The statement goes on to explain this applies to fundraising, financial contributions and endorsements.

Church leaders see the letter as a reiteration of a long-standing policy.

"We've had the political neutrality statement on the website for a number of years, so this is merely a further restatement of policy and practice," LDS spokesman Dale Jones told CNN.

Many religious faiths advise leaders to stay away from political endorsements. Political activity from the pulpit could jeopardize a faith's tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service.

The LDS policy also distances itself from the decisions of elected representatives. "Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position," the policy explains.

One example is Huntsman, who while governor of Utah signed a law introducing civil unions for gay couples. The church formally opposes same-sex unions.

In the U.S. Senate there are two powerful senators who are Mormons but sit on either side of the aisle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, are both members of the church.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • Jon Huntsman • Mitt Romney • Mormonism • Politics • United States • Utah

soundoff (120 Responses)
  1. Marie Kidman


    July 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
  2. Reality

    Thomas Spencer Monson (born August 21, 1927) is an American religious leader and author, and the 16th and current President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

    As president, Monson is considered by adherents of the religion to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator" of God's will on earth."

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-s-monson#ixzz1QhCsZZzd

    And the Mormon con goes on and on with another Joseph Smith in our midst!!!!!!!

    July 1, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
  3. Marie Kidman


    July 1, 2011 at 11:14 am |
  4. MidWestern Catholic

    I am disgusted by the appalling ignorance shown here regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As a Roman Catholic, I certainly do not share their faith or its unique convictions. But any group is best characterized by its common lay members. I have found LDS members to be charitable, honest, temperate, and kind.

    The LDS chuch's doctrine of salvation has much in common with the Universal Church (Roman Catholic) and hence provides a strong motivation toward actions that improve our society and our communities.

    Take a small hint from a Catholic - everyone of you who isn't Catholic IS a heretic - however, all who lead a good, moral, ethical life and show compassion, courage, and conviction in working for the best interest of their families, neighbors, and mankind CAN achieve salvation.

    Study the Mormon faith, study Orthodox and Catholic teachings, look for the root the Abrahmic faiths in the Torah, and you will learn how differing beliefs systems yet share a universal, central truth - the knowledge of a benevolent and loving God.

    June 30, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • WonderSpring

      You heretic Catholic. The Word of God says none of what you claim. Salvation is solely on the faith in Jesus alone with a new life manifested according to the faith. Read Ephesians chapter 2. The god of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible and Mormons rely on their "good" works for salvation as many Bible-illiterate Catholics do. The Bible clearly declares no one's work is good enough to redeem a soul. The reason Jesus came. If truth is so unimportant to you to ignore the Bible to that degree, why don't you quit Catholicism? What meaning is there in having a belief system if anything goes as you say?
      God is loving and merciful, and He is also holy and just and true.

      July 1, 2011 at 3:37 am |
  5. NYliberal

    Nudge nudge wink wink

    June 30, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • Mr. Cheeky

      Say no more!

      June 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • Eh

      Know what you mean! Know what you mean!

      July 1, 2011 at 10:32 am |
  6. fred

    As a Christian I look at the weird stuff in the text (book of Mormon) used by Mormons and think good gosh I can’t vote for someone who believes this stuff. Then I read the comments on this site about my Bible (myth, fairy tale , etc) and think from their perspective how could you vote for a real Christian. An atheist would never be elected if they revealed their beliefs or un beliefs. So it appears to be electable you do what most presidents of the US have done – carry a big bible go to church for the media then once in office toss God back under the bed.

    June 30, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • Abinadi

      Fred, Why don't you give us an example of what you think is weird in the Book of Mormon so that we can respond? There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that does not agree with the Bible unless, possibly, it be your "weird" interpretation of something in the Bible.

      June 30, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
  7. DL

    Personally, I think all charitable deductions should be disallowed. I think people should do charity on their own without a government kickback. But if the government retains charitable deductions, it seems to me that the establishment clause would preclude the government from deciding whose religion is true and deserves government benefits.

    June 30, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • fred

      Just say you want to tax the rich and be done with it since 90% of taxpayers cannot deduct contributions anyway given the standard deduction is larger. While you are at it our great government spent billions on Katrina clean up yet 96% of the real work came from charitable organizations and yes churchs were the biggest releif and work force present.
      So go ahead and kick the church some more. I dont give because of a tax deduction I would do it anyway and not just to churches but to all in need.

      June 30, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  8. TJeff1776

    Aaron.......wrong per usual. I don't intend to vote for either candidates. Romney established a sound healthcare plan in Massachusetts and then said "This is an example for other States". But recently, as a candidate, his plan is suddenly not for oher States. Naturally, Insurance companies and Healthcare companies that work in Massachusetts will work in other States as well, SO Romney caved to political pressure within his own party. I am certainly NOT in lock step like the Repubs. SO I do accept your apology of repentence in advance. President Monson of the Mormon Church simply repeated what ALL Presidents have heretofore done when an election year approaches. Its a matter of record. SO you are just another individual sounding off w/o knowledge of the subject matter. But don't feel bad because, as you can see, there's a lot of people hereon doing the same thing.

    June 30, 2011 at 8:56 am |
  9. BrianInMesa

    ALL religions are cults!

    June 30, 2011 at 2:24 am |
  10. Aaron

    What the church means is, don't choose one Mormon candidate over another Mormon candidate. No way that Mormons aren't going to endorse another Mormon running for office on the Repub ticket.

    June 30, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • Moroni

      What the LDS chruch means is "Don't do it publicly or from the pulpit where we can get caught. Do it word of mouth."

      June 30, 2011 at 12:44 am |
  11. FBMarky

    You're all a bunch of freaks who are wasting your time. When you're dead, you're dead. The worms eat you or the flames turn your remains to ashes. That's it. That's all there is. Get over it and enjoy the time you have on earth. There is no more.

    June 30, 2011 at 12:33 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Are you sure? I mean, I often wonder because Atheist seem to put a lot of faith in their beliefs.

      June 30, 2011 at 1:55 am |
    • Asterisk

      obvious troll is obvious

      June 30, 2011 at 5:18 am |
    • mist

      squirmy troll is squirmy

      July 2, 2011 at 4:50 am |
  12. Reality

    "Thomas Spencer Monson (born August 21, 1927) is an American religious leader and author, and the 16th and current President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

    As president, Monson is considered by adherents of the religion to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator" of God's will on earth."

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-s-monson#ixzz1QhCsZZzd

    And the Mormon "beat" goes on and on with another Joseph Smith in our midst!!!!!!!

    June 29, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
  13. TJeff1776

    ONLY the ignorant and backward types define the Mormon Church as a "Cult". Its slurish and meant to be insulting. BUT one MUST consider the source. The intelligent don't so make utterances like that. 13 million members in a single organization can hardly be a cult. One name-caller when asked to define a "cult"- couldn't. She thought it was non-Christian. I doubt if any one below can define the very name they insult with. Unlikely. The Mormon Church believes
    steadfastly in Jesus Christ- thence the name of their Church. They believe steadfastly in the King James version of the Holy Bible. The Mormons are no different from other denominations in at least one major way; that is, they interpret the Bible differently than others- BUT so do all churches. The Book of Mormon is reputed to be a history of the American Continent from approx. 800 BC to 800 AD – a history of the American Indian. The Mormons accept the B of M as additional scripture in addition to the Bible w/ the B of M covering a different time and place. SO, when one defines the Mormons slurrishly as a "cult", THEN you most assuredly can single out someone that knows virtually nothing about Mormons- and probably want to know nothing BUT continue to speak w/o knowledge........but then the Pharisees and Saducees did the same.

    June 29, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Peace2All


      Thanks for the info. and opinion on the Book of Mormon/LDS beliefs in relationship to Christianity in general.



      June 30, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  14. DothanDragon

    Well I guess CA and Prop 8 is a done deal. Judge Walker may now perform gay marriages without the LDS going after him or Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. Finely!

    June 29, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
  15. frank

    The true Kingdom of Heaven will be here when Ayn Rand is brought back from the dead via cloning and proclaimed the true Messiah by an ecstatic Desmond Tutu. She will lead the chosen to Planet Kielbasa where we will enjoy a pancake breakfast with Brigham Young and then be sent to every corner of the galaxy to sell Amway products to all benighted life forms of the Milky Way.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • Cracklin Klingons of Dryness from Planet Ass-Crak

      We will get right on that just as soon as we are finished thawing out the frozen head of Ayn Rand to speak in tongues.

      June 29, 2011 at 10:22 pm |
  16. Ted M.

    Their tax-free status is not supported by the First Amendment and thus should be revoked anyway regardless of their political involvement.
    As to their religious views, they have no place in our secular government anyway. They need to keep their religious insanity in their magic fundie undies and quit shoving it into the secular legal realm where it has no place at all.

    June 29, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • clwyd

      That is because religious cults are not suppose to be tax exempt!

      June 29, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Ted, they are Americans and unless you want to take that battle to all of the other politicians that come in with their own personal groups than you post just sounds extremely pety.

      Remember supreme court justice Sotomayor and her stating how great it was that she will bring a latinio female perspective to her rulings. There was a out cry but she was approved. Now if Bauchman says that she brings her faith into he politics then those that did not have an issue with Sotomayor have nothing to stand on.

      June 29, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Ted M.

      -Mark from Middle River-

      Did you have some argument to make? Can you show that I am wrong?

      If all you are going to do is be irrelevant, then why don't you go do that somewhere else?
      I made some points. You have not, in any way, shown that I am wrong.

      June 30, 2011 at 12:30 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Hi Ted.

      My point is clear and its cool if you do not want to except it but, that doesn't mean it didn't trounce yours. If you want to put hands over your eyes and go into tantrum mode, this is the time 🙂

      The call for folks to not bring their religious views into their service of their country is pretty laughable. My example of Sotomayor is a perfect example. Her statement was that she would bring, to the high court:

      “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

      Here is a Obama appointee making the claim that there are other factors that each of us brings to the table that cause us to think, rule, interpret and govern in some ways that are different. I am not a Latino or female but there might be something to what she said.

      In the end it always turns to this. Soon as one side declares an injustice the other side can point to something and it is almost always very similar. It works out like this Ted. If Bachmann says she is going to bring her Faith to her governance and I was ok with Sotomayor very open statement saying she is brining her race and gender into her actions on the court... then why would I not be ok with Bachmann saying basically the same thing? You appear to not be a person of Faith and who knows you might be and just have a different view but Ted, every politician does this and Bachmann is no different.

      Obama claimed that his mixed background would give him a different view on things than other candidates. I considered it garbage but, I feel safe enough to believe that he is honest about it and besides a host of issues, … I do not know yet.

      I will close with this Ted, I remember a Town Hall about 6 years or so ago and a young man stated that those politicians that claim that their military service made them the better choice for office, were basically wrong. I do not know, maybe he was a big “hate the military” guy, but he said that the those that served should be dissuaded from running for office. He appeared to hate the Military so anyone with possible military influence would not be the type of people he felt should be running “his” country.

      I put him and you in the same boat Ted. Each grasping at anything to just basically say that your “hate” should be all of society's “hate” and those you “hate” should have no voice or place in society.

      For you it is the Faithful. For others it is the blacks or the whites. Others its men and of course the flip side of that .. ones who feel women should not. Old, Young... full head of hair , balding, ….

      ...Southern... Northern …

      Ted, we all bring something to the table. When a person gets elected the folks who put them there know what they bring to the table. There will always be folks that feel that “something” has no place in governing, usually they are the losers of the elections. 🙂 If they had won, I doubt if they would complain because the candidate would be thinking more like them and bring what they felt was important to the table...... and how could they be wrong. 😀


      June 30, 2011 at 1:47 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I think there is a huge difference between bringing real world actual experiences to a government/judicial decision and bringing biases based on a cult's unproven tribal mythology, not to mention 1st amendment considerations. Any time someone says anything like "the law should be ... because my book of magic says so," they are wrong!

      June 30, 2011 at 1:57 am |
    • Ted M.

      -Mark from Middle River-
      I think you are blinded by some sort of bias, as you didn't really talk about what I had talked about. Very strange.

      My first sentence was about the nonsensical tax-free status of the Mormon organizations regardless of their political involvement.
      You don't appear to have touched on that at all, and I don't know why. Instead you go off about stuff I wasn't even talking about. Maybe you need some fresh air.
      I am talking about their religious values / morals / laws and how they should be kept out of our nation's legal system.
      I am arguing for equality under the law here, Mark.
      Would you want a national dress code based on a religious law? Do you want your junk checked at every streetcorner by the Mormons to make sure your junk is up to code?
      These examples are not all that extreme, though they are comical. Equal Rights under the law would ensure that no one religion's values get enshrined in our national laws, otherwise there would be no reason to not make a law forcing everyone to attend church on Sundays. Is that what you want?
      Forced to wear magic underwear? Penis shields according to some other religion? Forced to see a witch-doctor on Thursdays?
      Can you see why equality under the law and equal rights for everyone means throwing out the bias of religion, as none of them agree with the others on anything. There are so many religions that giving any of them precedence is necessarily preventing the free exercise of the other ones and refusing the others that special consideration, making the whole thing unequal to all?
      Equal Rights, Mark.
      Not walking in lockstep, but walking equally free and restricted in the same ways for everyone to the extent possible.

      You want to make this about politics, but it isn't. I was talking about the rule of law and equality under the law.
      You misunderstood me pretty badly. I don't know why, either. Have a nice day and don't sneeze too much. 😀

      June 30, 2011 at 5:37 am |
    • Peace2All

      @Mark from Middle River

      Hey -Mark...

      You know I love ya' bro...

      And... I gotta say that I have read your postings in relationship to both @Ted M and @HotAirAce, and IMHO... I think they may have you on this one.

      You might want to re-read what Ted M. initially posted, and then your responses... to me at least... what you wrote was not an isomorphic argument that in any way refuted Ted's, and i think -Ace made reference to that as well as -Ted.

      Just happened to be my 'read' on this whole thread. I could be wrong here...?

      I hope that you are doing well.



      June 30, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • Ted M.

      Thanks. I often wonder if anyone reads these things. 😀
      "isomorphic"? I had to look that one up! ha ha!

      June 30, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • Mark from Middle River

      sigh ... my post is caught in "moderation" ... will finish it tonight. L'chaim

      June 30, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      Hi Peace, Doing very well.
      Ted and Ace- The argument still holds. The fear mongering, that Ted has done is no real difference to what folks on the extremes always do. His list of things that could happen he claims are not extreme but I am pretty sure that both the Faithful and the secular would classify it as extreme. What Ted has done is give a Taliban'ish scenario and attempted to portray any one that is of Faith as carrying such views.
      It is the same as a Muslim student here stating that she is Muslim and her Faith guides her and then making the jump that she would support the Taliban's interpretation of Islamic law. Ted mentioned “lockstep”. That is one of my favorite words to use here because to so many Atheist, all of us who are of Faith, are “lockstep” in our views and beliefs. Sorta, that they see two churches across the street from each other and think that each is preaching the exact same doctrine.

      I could see if Bachmann was out there peaching or promising that she would do any of the things that Ted listed but we witnessed that she has not. She is a sitting politician, I am interested in seeing if examples of such a Taliban'ish type of view from her. The reason why Ted's post and argument goes south is because he is scared. The same way the white power and Neo-Nazis were scared of what would happen if a African American became president. What might a African American do to punish White America.

      Ted said: “I am talking about their religious values / morals / laws and how they should be kept out of our nation's legal system.”

      On that, I hold to be debatable. I mean the “thou shalt not kill” and the “Love your neighbors part” works well. Personally if she brought a end to capital punishment and said the cost is too high to execute a prisoner and then backed up that another reason is that “Jesus stated that he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Would you throw out the reasoning because of the second part or could you grasp the first half and let it carry you?

      Ted when you state equality of the law I return to the statement that many people bring their life's experiences to the table. It is part of being human Ted. The sum parts of you, me, Peace, and even Ace are a amalgamation of our life's experience.
      What is equality when you desire to silence another's life's experience just because you do not believe in them, experienced them or down right accept them? In actuality what you are promoting is pure censorship Ted. I stated that I have never been a Latina before but at the same time I can respect what Sotomayor brings to a debate or discussion. Would I want to censor her just because of an experience that I have not had? No, because I do not have that right in decent society. I have not served in the Military, would I want to exclude them? No again.. If a person said that he was abducted by Aliens and then returned to Earth … and the people of Berkley California elected him to come to Washington then …. I guess his speeches on the floor of the house or Senate might be interesting but again what right do I have to say that their views do not matter... Its stupid when folks do that gays, blacks, whites or whatever and it is wrong to exclude people of Faith from society. Heck, it will be basically impossible.

      Ted, that you are not a person of Faith I understand that you do not or have not experienced or felt anything. The problem for you is that others have and have always have, and will always have. Just as you are in a long line of doubters the same can be said for the part of society that has Faith.
      I guess I am going to close with this and it goes a bit with the part I wrote about the churches across from each other. Sometimes you have to just corner an Atheist on this. The scenario that you paint, while I feel nothing is impossible, ...you do realize would require all the Faiths to be of the same mind and interpretation of a single doctrine? Most of us of Faith realize this. Even Bin Laden realized this. It is always the Atheist that does not, because they see the Faithful as being Lockstep. Unless folks become united under a single denomination, how can what Ted posted could possibly come true. Bachmann's interpretation of the scripture is probably different than mine. Mine is different than my mothers and most of my friends. Chances are they could say the same with the members of their family.

      I do not fear, Ted. I took a civics class and because I am aware of what it takes to make a scenario such as you painted, I do not worry and I am not scared. There are too many sects of Faith... too many for even a President to overcome. That is why your post caught my eye, it was just another scare tactic. It is the “if Ne'groes or women get the right to vote” or “if Hilary Clinton gets in...” … or even “Don't let Al Gore in.. we will all be biking to work and McDonald's will be outlawed”

      For you Ted, those of Faith are the Big Bad Boogie-men, or Boogie-women. That people might possibly govern or rule and use that part of their life as a guide scares you. I understand that fear but, it is only fear.


      July 1, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Ted M.

      -Mark from Middle River-

      I agree with you on some ideas you have, but disagree with most of your assessments regarding my motives, tactics, strategy, and application of my personal viewpoints on equality under the law.

      If I could turn your attention to my actual words and not the things you would rather wished I had said, then we could get on much better and have a debate worth reading.

      Equal rights under the law.
      That is what I will keep saying to you until you realize that I am not against you as regards your equal rights under the law, as you seem so intent on saying so often and in so many ways.

      I am saying it again. Louder this time in case your eyes are too tired.


      Now I don't know if you've seen these words of mine before, since from your responses it appears as if your eyes slide right past these words in your rush to judgment against me.
      But, be that as it may, I am on firm ground with these words.

      Equal rights for all, including YOU. Did you not understand that part of what I was saying?
      I am fighting for YOUR rights, MY rights, and EVERYONE ELSE'S rights here.
      Is this not something we can agree about?
      That everyone in this country, even this whole world, deserve equal rights as human beings regardless of who they are, how they live, what they do or not do. Regardless of how they look, how they perceive the world around them, how they worship or not worship, or anything like that at all.

      Equal rights for everyone UNDER THE LAW.

      If you don't like the rule of law, and don't want equal rights for everyone under the law, then we would disagree on that point.
      Do you prefer anarchy or order? Law or lawlessness?
      I'm not saying you have to be one or the other. I'm just stating my position and questioning yours as yours is not that clear.
      Your position might be like mine or not.
      Regardless of your position, I will still fight for your equal rights.

      You don't have to thank me quite so profusely.

      Equal rights. The sort of thing I would have thought that no one would really want to argue against in this day and age, yet here you are, calling me a "fear-monger" and talking like I was against anyone using their life experiences to make decisions.
      I said no such thing.
      But we're also talking about making rational decisions, are we not?

      Or are you arguing that everyone in government should be allowed to make irrational decisions?

      And this thing you have about extremists. You are an extremist. I don't know why you paint them all with the same negative brush so often when you are one yourself. That is one of the weirdest things about you.

      You think all extremism is bad for some reason. There are types of extremism that are very good.

      Some extremists got you all the civil rights you enjoy as a Citizen of these United States of America.
      If this is how you thank them, go ahead. They fought for your civil rights and they were extremists about it.

      I am fighting for your civil rights and I am being something of an extremist about it, but you don't like it. Why?
      Just because I am of a very strong opinion?
      Just because I have a very strong position to argue from?
      Or are you just mad because I got here first and I'm a "nasty ole atheist"?

      Here is middle ground for us to speak and agree. I declare it to be middle ground even though this is where I am coming from.
      Equal rights for everyone under the law, and the rule of law that makes us a country.
      The Consti-tution makes us a country. The Const-itution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

      That's the middle ground whether you are talking government, politics, law, ethics as a citizen, or even, dare I say it, religion.
      We are citizens of this country. We live under the rule of law here.
      That is why equal rights is a middle ground most people should be able to agree on.

      If you don't like equal rights, then maybe you don't want to meet me as an equal.
      Maybe you would prefer to dictate your views to me and oppress me any way you could. Maybe not.

      See, when I fight for equal rights, I am also fighting for my rights. (It's kind of a bonus.)
      And in fighting for equal rights, I am *not* fighting against YOUR equal rights at all..
      See? Another bonus, but this time it's for YOU.

      Just how middle groundish were you lookin' to be? Still mad that I got here first?
      But you're my brother. I want you here with me, bro.
      Equal rights should be the filter through which we govern this country. No wait. It already IS the filter we use. Gosh, how about that? But if you don't want to be equal but only want to raise yourself above the law using your religion, then we have a real problem. I suggest you don't go there.

      As to making decisions in government, I prefer people who make good decisions that do not infringe on anyone's equal rights.
      If you've got a Pastor who can keep from infringing on the equal rights of all, and they know how to make good decisions without being blinded by their personal experiences, then bring him / her forth and let them run for President or any government position. It's not too late to vett someone before the primaries. I am also for progress.
      If you've got someone better than President Obama, bring them forth that we may examine such a person before voting.

      I don't mind voting for someone who knows how to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law and who actually does so.
      Why? Because I am fighting for, wait for it...


      I thought I better type that in caps again. I didn't want you to miss it.

      So tell me, Mark, what do you see as being the "middle ground" between my position on equal rights and ....yours?
      What sort of position would be a middle ground here? Because I think I'm sitting right on top of it.
      Have a nice day, bro. I am on your side because you're part of the family. Not because I like your goofy face. Okay?

      July 1, 2011 at 5:43 am |
  17. roscoe

    Mormon leaders involved in politics? I'm shocked that there's gambling going on in Casa Blanca.

    June 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Frogist

      LOL@roscoe How apropos!

      June 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
  18. Ron

    I wonder why they made this statement? Could it be because of people finding out about their involvement in the California Prop 8 issue? I've long held that if churches and religions want to play politics, take away their non-tax status.
    Taking away the Mormon non-tax status will make the Mormon Church back up fast because as we all know, the Mormon Church loves its "profit".

    June 29, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Jared Mauch

      The same statement comes out each election season as far back as I can recall. It's certainly nothing new.

      June 29, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
  19. Texas Doc

    Wake up people. The real jihadists are the LDS/Mormons. They are a dangerous cult with a Christian veneer. Don't believe these people, the Mormons are the soldier slaves of Cain.

    June 29, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • GodPot

      "They are a dangerous cult with a Christian veneer" Not much under the top layer of Christians either, just a bunch of weak, pressed together particle board.

      June 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Orange

      That is insulting to particle boards everywhere!
      I protest these insults on their behalf!

      June 29, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
  20. True Friend

    The original Zelda has stopped blogging under the name. I will come up with better ideas to dodge these atheists.

    June 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Zelda

      True Friend you are a liar to begin with. Your colors are showing more each post. People are seeing through your lies and what you are. You were never a friend of mone nor were you ever Zelda. I rebuke your kind. Disgusted!

      June 29, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • GodPot

      You cannot dodge us, it's not the name, its your words that give you away. It's like trying to hide a plastic bag of rotted fish under the seat of your car, you may not see it for several days but you can smell it within seconds.

      June 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • Zelda


      You cannot dodge us, it's not the name, its your words that give you away. It's like trying to hide a plastic bag of rotted fish under the seat of your car, you may not see it for several days but you can smell it within seconds.
      BINGO we have a winner! Adelina, Frederica, Friend, True Friend cannot resist pointing out a their fake. Along with HeavenSent

      June 29, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • Zelda

      Or some might look at it like chumming the waters 😉

      June 29, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • GodPot

      Um, yeah, I have never posted as any of those, though I did post as "HeavenScent" once just to make a point.

      June 29, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Regardless of which name she uses to spew her crap, I thank her for continuing to provide a fantastic example of the long term effects of ultra-belief on the human brain. She continues to be one of the best examples of why religion should be discarded immediately.

      June 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
    • True Friend

      You atheists are doing it because you have nothing to do in this world except for bullying the religious people. Let Muslims, Chinese and Ruissians possess USA; it's better for the planet.

      June 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Zelda

      AH AH AH AH shame shame True Friend do not assume all are Atheists. Some are believers and we simply see how absurd and counterproductive they are for Christians.

      June 29, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • True Friend

      False Zelda, no, you are all atheists. All of you. Only atheists do this. No other.

      June 29, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
    • Gotta Help That Girl

      Don't forget to put in your entries in the "Help Adelina/Frederica/Friend/Zelda/Justina Come Up With A New Name" contest!

      Entries so far:


      Post your replies!

      June 29, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • Electric Larry

      I think AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! really catches her inner character.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • True Friend

      Tik, tik. You atheists are too un-talented. It will be nothing like your poor imaginations. Read some literature written by Christian authors and repent.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • True Friend

      I really miss my America. I never encountered these evil, empty-brained Americans back then.

      June 29, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • The Lowdown on Friend

      It's not your America. You were not born here, you do not live here, you were never an American citizen. Hell, they probably kicked you out of the country.

      June 29, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
    • True Friend

      @Lowdown, I was never kicked out; don't be so assumptive. I just feel sorry for your forefathers that they had to die to protect idiotic citizens like you.

      June 30, 2011 at 4:56 am |
1 2 3
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.