LDS and Proposition 8: A Definitive Guide

FAIRwiki ^ | 11/17/08 | FAIR

[LightedCandle]

(This article is taken directly from the Wiki entry on the FAIRWiki website, a non-profit group that defends the Mormon church)

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nov. 5, 2008

Overview

The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. ^[1] This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

The text of Proposition 8

The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. ^[2]

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"^[3].

It reads in part:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

It also declares:

All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

---

Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort

How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?

The California Supreme Court, in the case of In Re Marriage Cases, on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.^[4]

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.^[5]

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. ^[6] The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

For more information:

• Church involvement in politics 

How were members informed?

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. The following is the text of the letter:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage. ^[7]

Were Church members told how to vote on Proposition 8?

Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no indication of how this support was to occur. As it turned out, the main ways that Church members supported the proposition were the following:

• Monetary donations
• Going door-to-door to poll voters
• Phoning voters to remind them to vote
• Sign-waving on street corners
• Hanging voting reminders on doors

For more information:

• Authoritarianism and Church leaders

Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Those who chose not to participate were not pressured to do so. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded.

For more information:

• Authoritarianism and Church leaders

---

The "No on 8" response

The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election

• Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com." prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is not recorded by the state. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" ^[8]

• Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the Daily Kos linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." ^[9]

The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial

On the day of the election, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8 (YouTube Video)

Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies

The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. ^[10] This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. ^[11] Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release)

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened

During the course of the campaign, a group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. ^[12] The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.

---

Where did the money come from?

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a strawman of their own creation.

	In-State Donations	Out-of-State Donations	Total Donations
For Proposition 8	$25,388,955	$10,733,582	$36,122,538
Against Proposition 8	$26,464,589	$11,968,285	$38,432,873
Totals	$51,853,544	$22,701,867	$74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side.

---

The vote

Voter demographics

• Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
• Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8.
• LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. Assuming that all of 300,000 estimated LDS voters voted yes, that would only account for 58% of the victory margin of the current count on CNN. In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
• Seven out of ten black voters and more than half of Latinos voted "Yes" on Prop 8. The large black turnout for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.^[13] The African-American vote, scaling exit poll numbers (10% Black voted 70-30 in favor) nearly accounts for the entire vote count difference. If the Black vote were removed, the passage of Prop 8 might have been too close to call. The net "yes" Black vote was approximately 474,749 compared to a victory margin of 515,362; accounting for 92% of the difference.
• The net Latino vote was around 128,182 or 24.8 % of the victory margin. (18% Latino voted 53-47 for Prop 8) Compared to the 2004 exit polls the African American turnout was higher 10 to 6% of the total vote and the Hispanic vote was lower 18 to 21%.

---

Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8

A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?

The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. The votes cast by Church members remain private, unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. Since the election, the Church has not asked, and will not ask, members how they chose to vote. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record.

Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." ^[14] 

Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?

The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?

From the Internal Revenue Service:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. ^[15]

But what about the companies that the Church owns?

Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?

California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions

Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?

Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet. 

Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?

One might also make the same argument for the amount of money spent by the "No on 8" supporters, which was actually higher than the amount spent by the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.” The Church does, however, fund a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?

Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

• Bishop H. David Burton, And Who Is My Neighbor?, April 2008 General Conference.

How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?

The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice.

---

Post-election events

Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

Threats from "No on 8" supporters

• "Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
• "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
• "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
• ""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" ^[16]

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists. ^[17]

Church response

The Church issued the following statement:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information. ^[18]

---

Negative effects

Accusations of hatred and bigotry

The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends. ^[19]

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

Protests at LDS temples

A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:

• Los Angeles Temple (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
• Salt Lake Temple (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.^[20]
• Oakland Temple (Oakland, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008^[21], XXX, and XXX.
• San Diego Temple (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008^[22], XXX, and XXX.
• Seattle Temple (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).^[23]
• Spokane Temple (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.^[24]
• Manhattan Temple (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.^[25]

Protests at other Christian places of worship

Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:

• The Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Orange County was the target of one protest

Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters

• Orangeville, California. Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.^[26][27]
• Arapahoe County, Colorado. A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.^[28]
• Utah. As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.^[29]
• Sacramento, California. Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.^[30

Terrorist tactics

On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

• Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples. An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. ^[31]
• Windsor Locks, Connecticut. An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. ^[32]

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

Hacking of Church related web site

• The web site which hosts Meridian Magazine was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. ^[33]

Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status

The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. ^[34] First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

Blacklists

Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

• AntiGayBlacklist.com
• "Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).

• Alison Stateman, What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List", Time (Nov. 15, 2008)

Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS

• Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). Boycott of restaurant called for when it is discovered that the owner donated $100 to "Yes on 8." Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.^[35]

• Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."^[36]

• Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.^[37][38][39] (Background info: Scott Eckern, “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”, Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

• Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). ^[40]

• "Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.^[41]

Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8

The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

• A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. ^[42]

---

Positive effects

Expressions of support from our Christian brethren

• Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur (YouTube Video)
• Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons, LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
• Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote, KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

 

Expressions of support from political leaders

Through November 15, 2008, there have been no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents.

---

Myths

Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.

MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8

Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the move West, over polygamy, over the repeal of polygamy, over the priesthood ban, over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian

Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to classify them as non-Christian, however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ.

MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers

NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign

Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.^[43] There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

---

Endnotes

Warning: Due to the nature of the subject, some external links may lead to sites which contain explicit language

1. [back] States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 , The Pew Forum (Nov. 13, 2008)
2. [back] California Voter Guide
3. [back] The Family: A Proclamation to the World
4. [back] Bill Ainsworth, "Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California," San Diego Union Tribune (Nov. 12, 2007).
5. [back] Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election (PDF). California Secretary of State.
6. [back] Matthai Kuruvila, "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8", San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008)
7. [back] California and Same-Sex Marriage, LDS Newsroom
8. [back] Matthai Kuruvila, Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8, San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 27, 2008)
9. [back] For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal, beliefnet (Oct. 4, 2008)
10. [back] Morris Thurston, A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”
11. [back] Blake Ostler, Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post) (Oct. 20, 2008)
12. [back] Jill Tucker, Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day, San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 11, 2008)
13. [back] Tony Castro, Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass, LA Daily News (Nov. 5, 2008)
14. [back] Carrie A. Moore, LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8, Deseret News (Nov. 16, 2008)
15. [back] Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, Internal Revenue Service
16. [back] 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban, WorldNet Daily (Nov. 5, 2008)
17. [back] When The Bullied Become The Bullies, The Malcontent
18. [back] Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest
19. [back] Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
20. [back] Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage," Salt Lake Tribune (Nov. 9, 2008).
21. [back] John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento," The San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008).
22. [back] Brooke Williams, "Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ," San Diego Union Tribune (Nov. 10, 2008).
23. [back] Janet Tu, "Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support," The Seattle Times (Nov. 10, 2008).
24. [back] "Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
25. [back] Colin Moynihan, "At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8," New York Times (Nov. 13, 2008).
26. [back] Derek Fleming, "'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church," The State Hornet, (Nov. 12, 2008).
27. [back] Chelsea Phue, "Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote," The Sacramento Bee (Nov. 13, 2008).
28. [back] Kieran Nicholson, "Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church," Denver Post (Nov. 12, 2008).
29. [back] Jennifer Garza, "Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites," Sacramento Bee (Nov. 14, 2008).
30. [back] Jennifer Garza, Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?, Sacramento Bee (Nov. 15, 2008).
31. [back] White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA, Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
32. [back] White Powder Found In Printing Plant, WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)
33. [back] Carrie A. Moore, Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site, Deseret News (Nov. 13, 2008)
34. [back] Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General (Nov. 13, 2008)
35. [back] Lisa Derrick, "El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers," The Huffington Post (Nov. 13, 2008).
36. [back] Charles Granda, "Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
37. [back] Jesse McKinley, "Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire," New York Times (Nov. 12, 2008).
38. [back] Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
39. [back] Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre, November 12, 2008.
40. [back] Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
41. [back] Alison Stateman, "What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"," Time (Nov. 15, 2008).
42. [back] Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8, San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 13, 2008)
43. [back] Protectmarriage.com.

 

[EagleUSA]

Hey Queers — America is a country of LAWS. Leave if you don’t like it and cannot respect it. Oh, PLEASE LEAVE!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

“Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign.”

Attempt to “humiliate” members must have failed miserably. More like a badge of honor.

[nufsed]

Preserving traditional marriage? LOL! Isn’t this the church that had polygamy until the congress pressured them out of it. What’s their version of traditional marriage?

[TaraP]

Can they get back into the Closet please.

I am going to make a point to eat at El Coyote’s when I am in L.A...think they have one here in the San Diego area and I always listen to K-earth when I can get it on the radio...

[Admin Moderator]

In the future, please remember that the Activism sidebar is reserved for News/Activism of the FR chapters. Not this.

[Texan Tory]

“Preserving traditional marriage? LOL! Isn’t this the church that had polygamy until the congress pressured them out of it. What’s their version of traditional marriage?”

I think you’re kind of ignoring the current reality by bringing up practices that were discontinued about 120 years ago. The current reality is that the LDS church is very much about a one man/one woman traditional marriage. You don’t have to like it, but those are simply the facts on the ground.

[Admin Moderator]

Also, the topic of this thread is about Prop 8, the Mormon Church’s support of such, and tactics that Prop 8 opponents used against the Mormon Church. Posts that try to migrate away from such will be removed. There are other threads going that specifically deal with Prop 8 and Mormon dogma - this is not one of those.

[nufsed]

It’s hypocritical. I know the church wants to ignore it’s own history, but you can’t change facts. Tradition is a historical concept. That’s why they call it a tradition. Whether you and I like it or not, indeed.

[dbz77]

“Preserving traditional marriage? LOL! Isn’t this the church that had polygamy until the congress pressured them out of it. What’s their version of traditional marriage?”

Those are the key words. Congress had to bitch-slap them into accepting traditional marriage. We did to the homosexuals what was done to the Mormons.

[colorcountry]

It would behoove us all to remember that the Prop 8 haters are trying to use the issue of LDS and its supposed hatred toward gays in an effort to shut down the constitutional efforts by the LDS to preserve marriage.

There are also those LDS who try to use the charges of hatred to try and squelch logical discussion of their theology.

Free speech, is free speech. It is guaranteed by the constitution to everyone regardless of their political OR relgious stance. Let US try to not let charges of hatred permeate our discussions. We conservative should know better.

[nufsed]

Conservatives should also know the majority cannot restrict the rights of the minority to pursue happiness and to liberty by popular vote.

But, hey, don't let me get in the way of you protecting my marriage. And I'm thankful, I didn't even know it was in danger.

[colorcountry]

Are you gay? Just asking...

[Texan Tory]

“I know the church wants to ignore it’s own history”

It seems there’s no statute of limitations when it comes to Mormons and their prior involvement in polygamy. Polygamy was once sanctioned within the Jewish faith (e.g. David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others), but that was more than two thousand years ago, so I guess my Jewish friends get a pass on that :-).

[goldstategop]

The Mormons have done nothing more sinister than to voice their views on an issue of moral importance. Gays may disagree with that view. But they not allowed to go out and prevent Mormons and any one else from expressing their views in this society. There is a line between respectful dissent and principled advocacy of one's views to coercion against others and retaliation against others for holding views different from your own. That is the line radical gay extremists have crossed. And their taking it out on the Mormons presents a real danger to other people who are not as prominent but hold similar views on the issue. Marriage is issue on which people may differ. But no one should be allowed to tell those of us, who like the Mormons, believe as a matter of moral principle, that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, to keep our peace on the subject to spare others' feelings.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[nufsed]

You’re just solidifying my case. So now we have more traditional marriages including polygamy. I rest your case.

[nufsed]

Just asking, do you agree with my point or not. If not, why? It's based upon historical fact.

If I'm a man married to a woman would it make it easier for you to agree? Just asking.

[Colofornian]

Preserving traditional marriage? LOL! Isn’t this the church that had polygamy until the congress pressured them out of it. What’s their version of traditional marriage? [nufsed]

I think you’re kind of ignoring the current reality by bringing up practices that were discontinued about 120 years ago. [Texan Tory]

Well, it's obvious, Texan Tory, that you're either 100% ignorant or are just intentionally ignoring two facts:

(a) In his book, Mormon Doctrine, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated in 1966 that polygamy is a "holy practice" and that this "holy practice...will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering of the millennium." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 578)

So, the "discontinuance" you reference would itself be "discontinued" tomorrow if the Mormon version of Jesus returned tomorrow.

(b) Mormons believe marriage is forever; so every past polygamist has simply shifted over to a different colony to live (beyond the veil). Furthermore, every serial monogamist -- according to Mormon thought -- becomes an eternal polygamist, provided that he or she was "temple worthy" when they died and provided those unions were recorded in the temple as "for eternity".

[Colofornian]

the topic of this thread is about Prop 8, the Mormon Church’s support of such, and tactics that Prop 8 opponents used against the Mormon Church. Posts that try to migrate away from such will be removed. There are other threads going that specifically deal with Prop 8 and Mormon dogma - this is not one of those.

I understand that the main thrust of this is about Prop 8, and therefore it would be great if most of the comments addressed it. However, the following paragraph is directly from the article:

How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage? The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice.

Are you saying that we can't even address comments about polygamy that the author of this article has already raised?

(Secondly we need to realize that FAIR isn't a news organization and isn't approaching this subject as a news operation. It's an apologetics organization and it's taking a cultural apologetics angle. Just because we may happen to agree with many things social and culturally with FAIR doesn't mean we are to be handcuffed in attempting to address those things they mention in this article, does it?)

[colorcountry]

I really can’t tell what your point is. Maybe I’m just dense. That’s why I asked, just what is it you’re defending?