Posted on 11/17/2008 7:17:25 AM PST by LightedCandle
(This article is taken directly from the Wiki entry on the FAIRWiki website, a non-profit group that defends the Mormon church)
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 following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:
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:
It also declares:
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:
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:
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:
For more information:
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:
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.
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]
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.
From the Internal Revenue Service:
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:
The Church issued the following statement:
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 protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".
A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
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.
No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.
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:
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.
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.
The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:
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.
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
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.
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.
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.
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.
| Warning: Due to the nature of the subject, some external links may lead to sites which contain explicit language |
I can't state it any more clearly.
So do you support the stance of conservatives in regards to traditional marriage? I do! I really want to make that clear. I stand for traditional marriage alongside traditional Churches and those Churches that are not so traditional, like the LDS.
Now you're asking me if I support polygamy and contracted marriages and all the other traditional types of marriage. I don't think the moderator wants us to hijack the thread.
No, I don’t understand. What is your point?
The earliest written Jewish Scripture is the Torah. In there you'll no find no "pre-sanction" for polygamy. In fact, you'll find just the opposite: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [singular] and they will become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)
He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. (Deut. 17:17)
If you try to say, "Well, let's look at what they actually DID" -- well, Solomon is the living example of Deut. 17:17: He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. (1 Kings 11:3)
Jacob didn't choose polygamy -- he was deceived into it. (And since when is deception "of God?")
Isaac was NEVER a polygamist. He married Rebekah.
Abraham, the angel of the Lord, Moses, Hagar the slave, and the apostle Paul NEVER reference Hagar as a wife or anything other than a concubine/slave. (Since ancient Jewish thought is a male-dominated faith, how is it that you claim it "sanctioned" what Abram did -- yet none of the males involved or those who later commented on it as "Scripture" ever deemed Hagar as a wife?)
So now we're down to David. Simply put, David inherited concubines as part of the kingdom he inherited.
Likewise, see Deuteronomy 17:17
“it’s obvious, Texan Tory, that you’re either 100% ignorant or are just intentionally ignoring two facts”
Ouch. Well, I’m not 100% ignorant, so that leaves us with that other thing you said about ignoring facts. I don’t think that all of the writings of Bruce R. McConkie are accepted as official church doctrine, even though he was an apostle. I will concede that your other point is correct, so that if a Mormon man marries, is widowed, then marries again, he will be considered to be married to both of these women once he dies and enters into the afterlife.
Regardless of Mormon doctrine regarding marital arrangements in the afterlife, Mormons, in terms of actual real-world religious practices, have been devout practitioners of traditional, monogamous marriage since their involvement with polygamy ended about 120 years, and they have fairly good statistics (lower divorce than average) demonstrating their committment to traditional marriage.
I agree with your previous comment that you may be dense. Maybe someone else here can explain it to you. I have tried twice.
You might want to spend some time on reading comprehension and vocabulary building rather than asking if someone is a homosexual.
Suggestion two: look up the definition of tradition.
Third: the definition of hypocrisy
I hadn't heard about this. The Prop 8 backlash has gone both ways.
Alriiightyyyyy then.
Yes and no.
On the one hand, you are right -- there's not necessarily a direct 1:1 correlation of McConkie's book to what is deemed "officially accepted LDS doctrine."
But that understanding basically falls on account of several points:
(1) BYU prof Stephen Robinson, in his co-authored book, HOW WIDE THE DIVIDE, states that LDS consider apostles and prophets to be essentially interchangeable. (That shows how much respectful authority is assigned to LDS apostles -- and nobody has ever specifically called out McConkie "on the carpet" for that 1966 published book...it was done for an earlier version)
(2) It was because of McConkie's earlier version that the LDS "First Presidency" realized in the mid-60s that McConkie's rewrite of Mormon Doctrine needed direct oversight. So, according to McConkie's son, LDS prophet Harold B. Lee assigned another member of the "First Presidency" -- later-to-be-named a "prophet" -- Spencer W. Kimball, to directly oversee the revised book.
That's what happened. Therefore, (3) there's absolutely no way the church would allow a book named "Mormon Doctrine" that's been in print all these years to continue to stand if it didn't represent mainstream Mormon doctrine.
Regardless of Mormon doctrine regarding marital arrangements in the afterlife, Mormons, in terms of actual real-world religious practices, have been devout practitioners of traditional, monogamous marriage since their involvement with polygamy ended about 120 years...
Well, your year numbers are off. LDS, in most cases, didn't dissolve existing polygamous families in the early 1890s. Secondly, they continued on a behind-the-scenes basis to privately sanction over 200 additional polygamous unions between 1890-1910. They started cracking down on a few polygamous unions "for show" in the early 1900s...but real reform didn't set in until Grant was the president in the 1930s. (That's why the fundamentalist Mormons didn't break away until then).
...they have fairly good statistics (lower divorce than average) demonstrating their committment to traditional marriage.
Yes, but surprisingly Utah has a high singles rate among adults...showing that even this high commitment to marriage is starting to undergo cultural change.
“...Torah. In there you’ll no find no “pre-sanction” for polygamy.”
Alright, no pre-sanction. But before moving on, take a look at Exodus 21:10: “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.”
Also read Deuteronomy 21:15 and 16: “15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.”
Exodus and Deuteronomy are definitely parts of the Torah, and are thought to have been written by Moses himself. Although you won’t find any scipture where Moses openly condones the practice of polygamy, he clearly was attempting to regulate, not forbid it, so it appears that is was an accepted practice among the jews at that time.
OK, look at Exodus 21:2-8. It addresses slavery, does it not?
Since most additional partners in that day were concubines, the context was the ethical treatment of slaves and servant women. Besides, if you use Ex 21:10 as some kind of claim that the Torah sanctioned polygamy, then would you be consistent and try to also tell us that Ex. 21:2-8 sanctions slavery?
The same applies to Deut. 21:15-16. Biblegateway.com heading for Deut. 21:10-14 is "Marrying a Captive Woman." Therefore, Deut. 21 is the exact same context as Ex. 21 -- and the same points I made above apply here.
Exodus and Deuteronomy are definitely parts of the Torah, and are thought to have been written by Moses himself. Although you won’t find any scipture where Moses openly condones the practice of polygamy, he clearly was attempting to regulate, not forbid it, so it appears that is was an accepted practice among the jews at that time.
Then, you are also telling us that both slavery and polygamy were "accepted practices among the Jews at that time?" -- Yes?
In light of the negative comments that LDS leaders have said about Christiandom, Christian sects, Christianity is many, many, many other contexts, what do you all make of this reference to LDS apologists (FAIR) calling us "Christian brothers?"
“Then, you are also telling us that both slavery and polygamy were ‘accepted practices among the Jews at that time?’ — Yes?”
I don’t know if slavery was an accepted practice among the Jews at that time, but you seem to make a pretty good case that it was. I have heard atheists criticize the Bible for this very reason, that it seemed to allow for slavery without condemning it. There may be later passages in the Bible, maybe the New Testament, that do condemn slavery, and if biblical scholars want to weigh in, I’d be glad to know what they think. I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar, and I acknowledge that some of the opinions I have expressed may be incorrect, so if you want to set me straight on something I’m wrong about, that’s fine. I participate in Free Republic not just to state my opinions, but to learn from others, including you. Cheers.
How many times do I have to post this for you to stop spreading distortions about Mormon opinions of others?
For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is the only people in whom God is interested, or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God, without regard to the lives they live, is not only a great and dangerous fallacy, but is a continuing barrier to peace. . . . Let us steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance. The most important problems facing us in working on a long range program for peace is a tolerant and sympathetic understanding between races and creeds.
Hugh B. Brown, LDS Conference, April 1966.
I do not believe that three-hundred-fifty millions of people that live in China in a state of heathen darkness are created to live in this state, and be damned because they do not have the right religion. I do not believe that all the nations that worship various kinds of idols, in different parts of the earth, and knowing nothing about the true God, will be consigned to be burned in fire hereafter, because they know no better than to worship as they do. . . . I was going to say I am not a Universalist, but I am, and I am also a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic, and a Methodist. In short, I believe in every true principle that is embodied in any person or sect, and reject the false. If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it. I care not what shape it comes to me, who brings it, or who believes it, whether it is popular or unpopular.
John Taylor (third President of the Church)
Salt Lake City, Utah
1853
This is the Mormon theory of God’s revelation to the children of men. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and is one of God’s instrumentalities in making known the truth, yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fullness of truth such as may be found in the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations, and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them. . . Confucius, , , ,Buddha, . . . the sages of Greece and Rome, . . . the reformers of early Protestant times. . . .
B. H. Roberts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.