And if their answer had been yes, they did have a problem with it, what then?
Great. Then invite public comment on the matter. If the Church wishes, it can state its position. To single out the Church for comment makes the whole thing look like they’re asking for the Church’s prior permission before acting, and that’s a bad thing in my book.
Then ask the populace. For the government to single out a religious authority for their express blessing of a proposed government action is improper in my book, if not necessarily unconstitutional. It’s an entaglement of church and state that has no place outside of a theocracy.
Nonsense. You and me, SPOOFE, we’re in the population. Heck, I’d bet we even both vote. But you and me, we ain’t the government. Moreover, there certainly isn’t any kind of “religious population” exception to the Establishment Clause. The good people of Alabama appear to be strongly Christian, but Chief Justice Moore’s little monument still has a date with a federal bulldozer.
Note again that I am not claiming the Utah state government’s action violates the First Amendment. But it’s awfully damned ugly from my point of view.
Perhaps that’s the only state that actually listens to its citizens?
Geesh…
I just really want to know how this affects you that a government was asking a church for permission? That shows me that this government is caring about it’s people and culture.
Again, the government didn’t ask its citizens. It asked a church.
I really don’t know why the government asked the church, so I can’t have too much of an opinion.
I’m sure there was some reason.
Are you insinuating that as long as something doesn’t harm me personally, I don’t have a right to an opinion? Boy, are you ever at the wrong message board.
You can find that reason by reading the OP and the article it links to. It’s not like the commission members were being coy about why they asked the church for its opinion on the matter.
Hey Monty, is it at all possible for you to understand that one is in fact able to challenge something relating to Mormonism without it being about you personally? Oh I forgot, you’ve had your little dull-edged knife out for me literally since my first post, so why would I possibly expect that a little thing like three and a half years would make a dent in your stupid shit?
If you weren’t blinded by your obsessive need to to be Monty the Attack Poodle about all things Mormon no matter what, you might be able to admit to yourself deep down in your lizard brain that, hey, the LDS church carries more than the usual level of influence within the state of Utah than churches do in other states and that hey, maybe there’s something a little bit wrong about a church’s needing to be consulted about changes to the law. Do you actually believe that had the church issued a statement that the faith required death by firing squad that there would be any chance that the firing squad would be abolished?
Hell with it. Monty’s an irredeemable prick as far as I’m concerned and nothing I’m ever going to say will cause him to treat me in any way other than the prickish behaviour he’s been throwing out there forever, so fuck him and fuck his cult.
Ya know, I was following along reasonably okay–ooh, mudslinging Pit fight!–until you got to that “cult” thing. Despite the fact that I have no connection to the Mormon church, and am therefore apparently incapable of expressing any worthwhile opinion on the matter, may I suggest that that is some vile, ignorant shit you just spewed?
The government asked the church because:
1)There are certain writings from the old days of Mormonism that state that blood must be spilled upon the ground for evil to be cleansed.
2)The LDS church has more infulence on and control over the Utah State Government than any other church/state relationship in the United States. Therefore:
- The LDS Church and Utah State government work together more than is usually the case. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on one’s point of view, I suppose, but that should answer the question of why the church was asked.
PS:Monty, before you go ballistic, my above comments are not intended to be anti-LDS. I was nearly totally ignorant on the LDS subject until some earlier ravings from you and Diane caused me to do a good bit of reading.
While I found no more to agree with in the LDS faith than I do in any other, I’m no longer totally ignorant on the subject. Peace, Bro.
There had to have been a better way to go about this. The commission could have said that they were planning on removing firing squads, and opened themselves up for public comment… and THEN the LDS could have issued a public statement saying they have nothing against the change.
But the way it was done in this instance, looks like they were asking the church for permission. Not that they neccesarily were, but the appearance of it needs to be taken into consideration. Appropriate respect for SOCAS demand a certain level of decorum when it comes to church and government interacting with each other.
By Blalron: “But the way it was done in this instance, looks like they were asking the church for permission. Not that they neccesarily were, but the appearance of it needs to be taken into consideration. Appropriate respect for SOCAS demand a certain level of decorum when it comes to church and government interacting with each other.”
It looks like they were asking for permission because they were asking for permission. If the church hadn’t agreed, there would have been no change. The issue would never have been publicized if there hadn’t been prior knowledge that the church would agree. That’s the way it works in Utah, like it or lump it.
I spent a week in Salt Lake City this summer. The fourth week in July. Saw the July 24th parade. Went to the days of '47 rodeo. Talked to a lot of people. I enjoyed the time I spent there, but it’s different.
If any of you go there, across the street from the Salt Palace there’s an alley. Proceed down it, and don’t lose the faith. It jogs a little, but stay the course. In due time you’ll come to an establishment called The Dead Goat. 
It has nothing to do with church or state, but don’t miss the opportunity to hang out there. You’ll meet some interesting folks.
Otto: YOU are the single biggest piece of shit ever to hit these boards. YOU think it’s all about you. YOU are the jackass here. YOU are the one who can’t fucking figure out a simple lack of cause & effect here.
John: Nothing other than your asinine comment about me going ballistic is offensive in your posting. Otto, on the other hand, is an offense all by his piece of shit self.
It’s too bad I can’t drag a lawn chair in here and watch. I know that would be bad form, so I’m bringing in a sign that says “I Have No Opinion” to wave around.
Good heavens, why? You blather about how this action by the state of Utah, while not exactly unconstitutional, somehow steps over some moral line regarding church-state separation. But you never tell us what, exactly, the negative consequences of them taking this action are. I see tremendous upsides to this action, and very little in the way of downside.
Look at the matter practically. The church would have expressed a view on this matter in any event. And the church’s view would have directed the view of the great majority of Utahns. If the church had come out opposed to this change after the commission started to implement it, there is a very real chance that the change would be a political impossibility. All the commission’s work would be for naught. It would be a complete and utter waste of government resources.
It is therefore prudent to establish the church’s position from the beginning. Why tilt at windmills if you don’t have to?
This is no different than asking, say, Jesse Jackson’s organization if they approve of a change that will affect an African-American community. Better to ask first and avoid picket lines later.
And your notion of asking individuals in lieu of the church is absurd. The church is an opinion-maker. Its position would likely sway many Utahns who would otherwise stake out the opposite position; it’s one thing to favor a particular secular policy choice, and quite another to favor that choice after being told it violates church doctrine.
minty
Oh sorry, didn’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings by calling the freakshow that is the Mormon church a cult. I hope they’ve baptised me in absentia against my will and without my consent so I can still go to Heaven.
Attack Poodle
And Monty the Attack Poodle yaps some more, in the face of the simple and clear words of the OP link:
Yap on, little poodle.
It is reasonable to assume that prior to this official request for the church’s opinion that senior state officials asked the church what their opinion would be - that done, and fully knowing the answer; the church’s position was sought officially.
I live in Utah.
I am NOT Mormon.
The effect this firing squad/LDS Church thing has on me? Nada, but it amuses me at how much it seems to affect some of you.
How’s this for a downside: a strong appearance to the non-Mormons of Utah that government in their state is conducted first and foremost by, for and in deference to the LDS majority? How about a message to non-Mormon Utahns that the opinions of the LDS leadership are given credence in a way that their opinions – whether from individuals or their organizations – cannot approach, because no one is asking.
I’m sure that Bob Cook (head of the Assemblies of God church in Utah) has a position on the Biblical necessity of the firing squad as the only legitimate means of execution, but he wasn’t asked. Salt Lake City is the home of the second largest Greek Orthodox community in the western US (the largest is in LA) but no panels or commissions are calling up the Greeks, are they? And that doesn’t even address the secular groups which might have valuable input on the topic from non-sectarian perspectives.
Yes, a majority of Utahns are LDS. But that makes it all the more important that the state of Utah, which must represent the non-LDS citizens with equal zeal remains ever vigilant to avoiding an impression of pandering to the LDS church in matters of government. Most government workers, legislators and commission members will be LDS simply by the numbers; actions like this only marginalize the non-LDS minority all the more, by appearing to invalidate their input and opinions on matters which affect the entire state.