Comments « Meridian Magazine
Rhodes - Baked with Love - LEARN MORE

Sign up for our newsletter


Signed up, but still not getting our newsletter? Click here.


February 21, 2024

Comments | Return to Story

chrisSeptember 28, 2016

"I realize that just by asking what “love” means" I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the professor just asked us, "I want to know what love is". That's a question for the ages that not even Foreigner could answer.

JaredSeptember 16, 2016

I think that the love wins argument, or lack of an argument, through the insistence of there being no definition for the word love, prevents discussion and therefore only permits of rule by force. Love needs to be defined by what is good for the person being loved. And that means we need to understand what is good. A doctor, or healer, who has no understanding of what will help his patient, is just going to be experimenting on them. We, being blessed with the gospel and the truths of the scriptures, have a responsibility to love in a way that reflects our commitment to God. We are told that love 'has no labels'. It has become enforcement of absurdity and has caused reasonable people to question the ability of our society to remain a going concern.

MicheleSeptember 16, 2016

Well said, Sharon. Thank you for encapsulizing the scriptures. I am not 'against' moral relativism so much as I am for the eternal nature of the family, no less central to the gospel's doctrine than the Atonement itself.

SharonSeptember 15, 2016

When I was in my early twenties a partner of the boss where I worked said to me, "There is nothing wrong with doing something wrong." He was not LDS, nor of any religious persuasion as far as I could tell. And he was earnest in his desire to explain to me why moral relativism was correct. I replied to him that he had just negated himself out of existence. It has been forty plus years since then, but the argument does not seem to change. When "Inclusiveness" - meant as no boundaries - is used as the only way to show charity, the value of that "charity" becomes meaningless. In that scenario, Christ would not have "forgiven" the woman taken in adultery, there would have been no reason to forgive her. Neither would he have admonished her to "sin no more". Without sin, there is no reason for compassion, without fault, there is no reason for mercy. Without commandments, there is no reason for an atonement or a Savior. (Paul said, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." Romans 6) It is the same argument Alma offers to his son Corianton. Having, believing in, and trying to follow God's commandments does not mean that a person thinks himself superior to another. We are all alike before God. We all need His love and forgiveness. At the same time, to know God, the God of all creation, is to believe in divine truth, justice, mercy, joy, and life. Which things cannot exist in a morally relativistic world. In such a world the compass has no magnet, all directions being equal, and since that very "equality" becomes the "virtue" of inclusiveness, the impassioned journey though heartfelt, cannot reach the heights needed to elevate either themselves or those they most wish to aid. The only circular path that leads anywhere, is the circle we find within His atoning embrace.

AnonymousSeptember 15, 2016

What would be a healthier life for a same sex attracted individual: a chaotic life of promiscuous sex with many partners or a faithful,monogamous relationship? I'm sure you'll say a celibate life, but I want to point out that the idea of sexual morality for heterosexuals involves sex, sex within a committed relationship. I fear we are giving same sex attracted individuals only the choice between celibacy and promiscuity. I think the forces of sexual revolution are able to use this issue so effectively because we refuse to make this distinction.

mary jane fritzenSeptember 15, 2016

Intelligent writing. I agree.

Phillip C. SmithSeptember 15, 2016

Right on. Your wisdom rather than world shallowness.

Good ReasonSeptember 15, 2016

Well said. Elder Oaks has commented, “Love is an ultimate quality, and tolerance is its handmaiden. Love and tolerance are pluralistic qualities—encompassing all—and that is their strength, but it is also the source of their potential distortion. Love and tolerance are incomplete unless they are accompanied by a concern for truth and a commitment to the unity that God has commanded of his servants. Carried to an undisciplined excess, love and tolerance can produce indifference to truth and justice and opposition to unity. What makes mankind free from death and sin is not merely love but love accompanied by truth.”

CHARLIEBROWN2292September 15, 2016

This article highlights the impending seriousness of the threat against people of all religions if Hillary Clinton – a fervent supporter of all ultra-liberal causes – gets elected President of the United States. This should get Utah people to reflect on their responsibility in facilitating her election through not supporting that of Donald Trump.



    Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.