FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2012-04-21T20:17:48Z

JohnLynch: /* The webmaster of MormonThink in his own words */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=MormonThink
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes=
}}
{{CriticalWorkInfobox
|title=''MormonThink.com''
|type=Website
|author=Anonymous; Webmaster uses the pseudonyms "Truthseeker" and "SpongeBob SquareGarments"
|affiliation="Active" members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Ex-Mormons active on the ''Recovery from Mormonism'' message board. Recent indications suggest that the only "active" member is the webmaster.
|accuracy=Conclusions drawn are predominantly negative toward the truth claims of the Church.
|templecontent='''NOTE: Extremely detailed temple content is posted on the web site'''
}}
==The webmaster of ''MormonThink'' in his own words==
The webmaster of ''MormonThink'' posts in several online ex-Mormon message boards under the names "SpongeBob SquareGarments" and "LDS Truthseeker". The best explanation of his website and its purpose is offered in his own words.
<blockquote>
'''From the admin of MormonThink'''
<br><br>
As the guy who gets most of the email directed to the MormonThink website, I can say that 19 out of 20 people that read through the website say it changed their minds and they no longer believe in the church and usually write to thank those that helped make the site. But 1 out of 20 is someone that has read most of it, or has read a lot of it, and still believes. I have had ongoing conversations with these people and they continue to believe (at least for now). I think if people really want to believe that something is true, they will find a way to do it - like the apologists who know as much as any of us do. However, my experience is that if you can actually get someone to look at all the facts via a few websites or books, that the majority will stop believing in the church and that 100% of those that viewed everything will at least have a diminished view of the church they thought they knew.<br>Posted by '''SpongeBob SquareGarments''' on thread "Ever Get a TBM to Read a Book or Website Exposing the Truth About Mormonism?", ''Recovery from Mormonism'', April 20, 2012.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
So that is one of the reasons I remain in the church. It gives me greater credibility when I speak about my own religion instead of it being my former religion. We all know as soon as I leave it, I am labeled as someone who left because of morality, tithing or some other issue rather than the historical problems of the church. One reason that Grant Palmer's book has been so successful is that he is a current member (although now disfellowshipped) and not vilified like the Tanners. By subtly mentioning things in meetings I may raise some doubts or by carrying around a copy of ‘An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins’ or Sunstone or Dialogue, I am sometimes asked about them and can gently guide someone to further enlightenment about church history. So you can consider myself one who tries to share the historical problems of the Church from within instead of from outside the Church. It's tough sometimes but I don't take any crap from anyone. I no longer pay tithing or wear garments and blow off callings I don't want but I remain a member because I choose to be one....The hardest challenge for me is to keep some level of integrity. I never lie at church (i.e. give a false testimony) but I play the game to keep membership but don't want to be given callings I don't want. I don't mind going to church (but not all the time) but don't like to be hounded to go to the temple and such. ALSO, it is very hard for me not to stand up and tell the teacher that the manual is wrong or call out some member (a friend) for saying something in error. It is hard to sit though many of the meetings when I know [so] much more truth than any of them do. And I can't just stand up and tell them.....No tithing but I give a fair share to other worthy charities. I'm not a big drinker but I do drink now and then if I want to.....I must admit I am cautious about that. Not so much for me but for my wife so I don't normally drink in public. yeah, I feel like a kid hiding beer at home from my ne[i]ghbors but it's the price I pay.<br>—Comment posted by "active Mormon" MormonThink webmaster on thread [http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/ozyfg/i_am_the_webmaster_of_mormonthinkcom_ama/ "''''I am the webmaster of MormonThink.com AMA'''',"] ex-Mormon reddit, Jan. 2012
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
I fantasize about a full-blown faith-destroying session. In real life, I did put the bishop in his place over polygamy. He kept saying I was wrong about Joseph having other wives and being illegal and such. I proved him wrong and he ate crow.<br>—MormonThink's webmaster, posted as "'''SpongeBob SquareGarments'''" on ''Recovery from Mormonism'', Feb. 21, 2012
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
OUR OPPORTUNITY GUYS AND GALS: Make sure you call in with a good question or 2 so it will give Grant [Palmer] a reason to bring up something damaging - B[ook] O[f] A[braham], Kinderhook Plates, polyandry, etc.<br>—Posted by: "'''SpongeBob SquareGarments'''" on ''Recovery from Mormonism'' on May 18 during a call-in show featuring Grant Palmer.
</blockquote>

==Testimonials from those who no longer believe in the Church because of MormonThink==
<blockquote>
I went from believing to non believing literally within minutes, while reading about the [Book of Abraham] on MormonThink. It was on a Sunday evening. That Sunday was the last time I went to church. My family resigned a month after that.<br>Ex-Mormon '''Mia''', posted on ''Recovery from Mormonism'', April 20, 2012.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
I think that it is a crucial site for [True Believing Mormons] to discover the truth. The fact that Mormonthink.com is run by members removes any suspicion of "anti-mormon" material. I LOVE THE SITE.<br>'''Angelina5''', posted on ''Recovery from Mormonism'', April 20, 2012.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The big thing I don't understand is how the members who run the site can still be members. If I'd known half of all that stuff sooner I would have gotten out before I did. Why don't they?<br>'''rosemary''', posted on ''Recovery from Mormonism'', April 20, 2012.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
I personally am still a member and I think I stay in mainly just to s[t]ay on top of the latest happenings in Moism and it gives me fodder to add to the website seeing the latest craziness the church is spewing out. We also have friends there and don't want to lose them but we don't let the church push us around and we take it on our own terms - no tithing, garmies or other things we disagree with.<br>'''SpongeBob SquareGarments''', responding to this praise on ''Recovery from Mormonism'', April 20, 2012.
</blockquote>

==Other testimonials==
<blockquote>
My challenge remains: find me a web site that is more honest/objective/accurate/comprehensive on factual Mormon history than Mormon Think. I'm all eyes/ears.... Both (all) sites are biased -- I think that the FAIR site is 50x more biased than Mormon Think. Just my opinion....My experience is that the FAIR/FARMS spin ultimately causes much more harm than good. It's just rarely credible to thoughtful, objective people who are trying to uncover the "truth." Consequently, it can be really disco..<br>'''John Dehlin''', post on Dehlin’s Facebook wall, 3-4 January 2012, {{link|url=https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin/posts/592940706139/}}
</blockquote>

=={{Subarticles label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Overview
|subject=Overview of the MormonThink website
|summary=The web site MormonThink.com claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in objectively presenting the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"
|subject=Response to MormonThink's list of 25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"
|summary=According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most items on the list are standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Index
|subject=MormonThink Table of Contents
|summary=Correlation of ''MormonThink's'' Table of Contents with FAIR Wiki responses
}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Website reviews/MormonThink]]

Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death

2009-07-09T17:13:05Z

JohnLynch: /* Conclusion */

{{RacePortal}}

==Criticism==
"...Brigham Young said race mixing was punishable by death."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=194}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=296}}
* Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007.

==Response==
It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, nor does he seem to have spent much time exploring the history of this issue.

It seems likely, however, that Maher was referring to a statement made by Brigham Young:

:Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.{{ref|jd1}}

The "chosen seed," in LDS doctrine, are those who hold the Melchizedek priesthood (see {{s||DC|107|40}}). So, Brigham is likely addressing his remarks particularly to those under the "oath and covenant" of the priesthood. This is not surprising, since the rest of the United States was certainly not listening with any respect to the Mormons, whose polygamy and doctrines they regarded with abhorrence.

With the Civil War at full burn, Brigham went on to declare: "I say to all men and all women, submit to God, to his ordinances and to His rule; serve Him, and cease your quarrelling, and stay the shedding of each other's blood." He is thus in the mode of condemning the United States and the "nations of the earth" for their sins, and he then says:

:If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. '''For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent'''.{{ref|jd2}}

==Brigham's Remarks in Historical Context==

Brigham made his remarks, then, in the context of a civil war over the issue of slavery. Brigham condemned the ''white male'' (and perhaps priesthood holder) who "mixes" with black Africans. Why?

When would a white person "mix their seed" with the blacks? At the time, black slaves could not legally marry—this was a "human right," and the slave-holding states were very careful not to let blacks marry, since to do so implied that they had human rights (and, if they have one right, why not a right to be free?) As a history of marriage in the United States noted:

:The slaveholder's callous lust—his moral violence as well as his physical cruelty—gave abolitionists their most effective theme. Sexual abuse of female slaves by rape, incest, forced mating, and concubinage figured even more sensationally in abolitionist literature than the sale of slave family members..."No part of the dark and hidden iniquities of slavery" deserved revelation more than its travesty of the "nuptial covenant" with "odious lusts," the abolitionist George Bourne intoned, referring to the master's unchecked freedom to use the bodies of his female slaves.{{ref|cott1}}

Representative Justin Morrill, who would help write the first anti-polygamous legislation, thundered that "By the license of Slavery, a whole race is delivered over to prostitution and concubinage, without the protection of any law."{{ref|morrill1}}

So, under what conditions would a white priesthood holder (or any white) be mixing their seed with a black woman? All too often, this was under the context of what was essentially rape and assault. Many slave-holders kept their own children in slavery, as they sired children on black slaves who could not refuse. By law, any child born to a slave was automatically a slave. One southern woman wrote:

:God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system...the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resemble the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household but her own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds.{{ref|cott2}}

Blacks created a variety of their own arrangements which formalized these "informal" marriages, but families were always at risk of being broken up and sold by their owners, with no recourse. A major element of post-Civil War federal policy was the establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, which had "the aim to reorient slaves' sexual and family behavior around legal marriage,"{{ref|cott3}} a goal which had been impossible under generations of slavery.

Intermarriage with blacks was either illegal or virtually unheard of, and for decades after the Civil War, courts repeatedly rebuffed efforts by mixed race couples to legalize their unions.{{ref|cott6}}

Thus, a good part of Brigham's objection likely rested on the circumstances which would attend most white male/black woman pairings in his day. He would have likely known of no counter-examples—no relationships with blacks could be legal, and most resulted from duress.

Spiritual death seems an appropriate punishment for a priesthood holder who behaved in such a way, and literal capital punishment might not be too severe if "the law of God" could be administered by a genuine prophet. There are few crimes more grievous than to treat others as subhuman, and rape the powerless.

==Conclusion==

Brigham Young's comments were a condemnation of abuse and rape of helpless black women, and not an overtly racist statement condemning interracial marriage.

In 1863, couplings between black women and white men would virtually always be a relationship of a staggering power imbalance, with few rights for the woman, who was often forced into sexual activity. Her children would have been automatic slaves if she was a slave, and the men under no legal responsibility to provide for her or the children. (This failure to provide for offspring was a common Mormon criticism of Gentile non-marriage relationships when contrasted with plural marriage.)

Unlike contemporary 1860s fears for the virtue of ''white women'' when subjected to the predation of black men,{{ref|cott4}}. Brigham was far more worried about white men abusing their position of political and cultural superiority.

This is not to say that Brigham did not share some ideas about the desirability of keeping races separate; virtually everyone of his era did. American ethnologists taught that whites and blacks were separately created races, the mixture of which would corrupt both.{{ref|cott5}}

But, when in the same speech Brigham Young condemns the whites for their treatment of blacks, and threatens punishment for white men who have what is likely forced intercourse with black women, it is not fair to portray him as a ravening racist with no concern for the downtrodden. His fire and brimstone is all for the aggressor; his sympathy is for those who were mistreated.

==Endnotes==

# {{note|jd1}} {{JoD10_1|start=110|author=Brigham Young|title=The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.|date=8 March 1863}}
# {{note|jd2}} {{JoD10_1|start=111|author=Brigham Young|title=The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.|date=8 March 1863}} (emphasis added)
# {{note|cott1}} Nancy F. Cott, ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'' (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2000), 58.
# {{note|cott2}} Mary Boykin Chestnut, diary, from ''Root of Bitterness'', ed. Nancy F. Cott (New York, E.P. Dutton, 1972), 209; cited in Cott, ''Public Vows'', 59.
# {{note|morril1}} Morrill (Vermont), 1860; cited in Cott, ''Public Vows'', 74.
# {{note|cott3}} Cott, ''Public Vows'', 84.
# {{note|cott6}} Cott, ''Public Vows'', 101–104.
# {{note|cott4}} See Cott, ''Public Vows'', 98—99.
# {{note|cott5}} Cott, ''Public Vows'', 98–99.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===

{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===

{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T20:03:06Z

JohnLynch: /* No professional ministers */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}).
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}}) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. Critics who complain about the use of Church funds do not contribute to the Church, and the funds they complain about are used to help leaders whom they do not sustain.

Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T19:59:25Z

JohnLynch: /* Conclusion */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}}) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. Critics who complain about the use of Church funds do not contribute to the Church, and the funds they complain about are used to help leaders whom they do not sustain.

Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:50:37Z

JohnLynch: /* No professional ministers */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:49:51Z

JohnLynch: /* No professional ministers */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not have a seminary educational system established for the purpose of graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:38:41Z

JohnLynch: /* Priestcraft */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:36:34Z

JohnLynch: /* Priestcraft */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:26:33Z

JohnLynch: /* Priestcraft */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:26:03Z

JohnLynch: /* A Scriptural Basis */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||D&C|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:24:30Z

JohnLynch: /* A Scriptural Basis */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s|DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||D&C|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:20:09Z

JohnLynch: /* A Scriptural Basis */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s|D&C|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||D&C|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:18:25Z

JohnLynch: /* A Scriptural Basis */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s|D&C|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||D&C|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:17:49Z

JohnLynch: /* Priestcraft */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s|D&C|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||D&C|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T18:04:48Z

JohnLynch: /* A Scriptural Basis */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s|D&C|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Ne 26:29). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see Alma 1:12 & 16, 3 Ne 16:10, 3Ne 21:19, 3 Ne. 30:2, D&C 33:4). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-07-02T17:56:41Z

JohnLynch: /* A modest living stipend */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008).<br>
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a <i>professional</i> ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." And, given the high caliber and accomplishment of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make much more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. Doctrine and Covenants section 42:71-73 accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as <i>priestcraft</i>, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Ne 26:29). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see Alma 1:12 & 16, 3 Ne 16:10, 3Ne 21:19, 3 Ne. 30:2, D&C 33:4). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is directed more about intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial compensation. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, elders, missionaries, etc. In fact, missionaries typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System).<br>

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a very few members of the Church seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System, no one in the Church can decide that they are going to be a bishop, stake president, or relief society president (or any other position in a ward or stake) as a career choice. It is somewhat hypocritical for critics of the Church to complain about the use of Church funds to which they do not contribute, which funds are to help leaders whom they do not sustain. No one who examines the schedule or workload of the General Authorities can claim that these men are looking for an "easy buck." They live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

There are no colleges where one can go to train to be an LDS bishop, for example. Rather, these positions are filled through revelation and inspiration, and only for a given period of time. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}})

Latter-day Saints should not, however, use the "no paid ministry" card to argue the truthfulness of the Church. Many good people of other faiths desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so, and we applaud their dedication and desire to serve. Most clergy get by on subsistence wages; the cliché of the corrupt, wealthy televangelist bilking old widows is an anomaly as troubling to other Christian ministers as he would be to Latter-day Saints.

The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel <i>solely</i> from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{b|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with many things, this issue boils down to a question of the essentials—are the leaders of the Church called of God, by prophecy? Is their direction inspired? If one does not believe that they are inspired, then one must confront far more troubling issues than whether someone is receiving a living stipend.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Plan of salvation/Sons of Perdition/Can women be "Sons of Perdition"

2009-05-27T16:58:06Z

JohnLynch: /* Evidence against the idea */

{{draft}}<br>
{{question}}
==Question==
Are there women who would be among those cast into outer darkness? Are there female 'Sons of Perdition'?

==Answer==

FAIR is not aware of any official Church position on this issue.

==Evidence against the idea==

The idea that women cannot become "sons of perdition" likely comes from {{s||DC|84|40-41}}:

:40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.
:41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

Some interpret this to mean that to become a "son of perdition," one must first hold the priesthood. It does, in fact, state that if one receives the priesthood covenant and "altogether turneth therefrom", it is unforgivable. However, it does not explicitly say that that is the only way to become a son of perdition.

===Brigham Young===
This uncertainty did not keep Brigham Young for teaching that women were not at risk of perdition:

:Man is the transgressor. Eve was the first to partake of the forbidden fruit, and the man was disposed to follow her, and did follow her; consequently, sin is in the world, and when redemption comes it must come by man. When we speak of law and the transgression of law, we refer to the law of God to man. I doubt whether it can be found, from the revelations that are given and the facts as they exist, that there is a female in all the regions of hell.{{ref|by.222}}

Brigham saw man as more culpable than woman for the Fall, and thus expressed his view that the revelations no where mentioned a woman in "all the regions of hell," which likely refers to perdition in this context.

The next year, Brigham again relied on his view of women's relative innocence when he said, "Woman must atone for sins committed by the volition of her own choice, but she will never become an angel to the devil, and sin so far as to place herself beyond the reach of mercy." His reasoning drew on the same view of woman's lesser culpability: "She is not accountable for the sins that are in the world. God requires obedience from man, he is lord of creation, and at his hands the sins of the world will be required. Could the female portion of the human family fully understand this they would see that they are objects of tender mercy and greatly blessed."{{ref|by.1861}}

Brigham is a good example of the necessity of taking nothing for granted in reading such quotes. He often discussed the matter of sons of perdition when mentioning both men and women, but his earlier explicit quotes make it clear that we ought not to read anything into this ambiguity:

:The names of ''every son and daughter'' of Adam are already written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Is there ever a time when they will be taken out of it? Yes, when ''they become sons of perdition'', and not till then. Every person has the privilege of retaining it there for ever and ever. If they neglect that privilege, then theft names will be erased, and not till then. All the names of the human family are written there, and the Lord will hold them there until they come to the knowledge of the truth, that they can rebel against him, and can sin against the Holy Ghost; then they will be thrust down to hell, and their names be blotted out from the Lamb's Book of Life {{ea}}.{{ref|by.1}}

Brigham would later say that "All the sons and daughters of men will be saved, except the sons of perdition,"{{ref|by.2}} and "Jesus will bring forth, by his own redemption, every son and daughter of Adam, except the sons of perdition, who will be cast into hell."{{ref|by.3}} Again, we have the mention of men and women being saved, but his reference to "sons of perdition" should apparently not be read in a generic, non-gendered sense.

Brigham elsewhere lumped all traitors to Christ with the sons of perdition:

:The Lord is merciful, but, when He comes to His Kingdom on the earth, He will banish traitors from His presence, and they will be sons of perdition. Every apostate who ever received this gospel in faith, and had the Spirit of it, will have to repent in sackcloth and ashes, and sacrifice all he possesses, or be a son of perdition, go down to hell, and there dwell with the damned; and those who persecute and destroy the people of God, and shed the blood of innocence, will be judged accordingly.{{ref|by.4}}

Brigham's argument seems to implicitly require that no woman can be an apostate in the same sense as a man—this may reflect his experience of most violent apostates being men, and was also doubtless influenced by his view of women as less inherently corrupt and culpable for the world's sin.

===Joseph F. Smith===
In 1895, Joseph F. Smith addressed both men and women in a manner which might suggest that "sons of perdition" was a generic term for males or females:

:Hence I warn you, ''my brethren and sisters'', especially my brethren, against trifling with your Bishopric, because if you do, as God lives He will withdraw His Spirit from you, and the time will come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which you have received, and you may become ''sons of perdition'' {{ea}}.{{ref|jfs.1}}

The plausibility of this reading, however, is undercut by an informal discussion in 1903, Joseph F. Smith's views were expressed:

:There was some informal talk regarding the question as to whether there are, or would be, any women in hell. It was conceded that some women by their acts—namely, abortion, child murder after birth, and the poisoning of their husbands, and other criminal acts—merited a place in the lower regions. President Smith expressed the view that women who commit such crimes as those mentioned would receive punishment to the uttermost farthing, but that there would be no daughters of perdition. This, he said, was his view in regard to the matter, which also seemed to meet the minds of the brethren.{{ref|jfs.1903}}

To muddy the waters further, President Smith's remarks in 1916 struck a slightly different tone:

:"The devil knows the Father much better than we. Lucifer, the son of the morning, knows Jesus Christ, the Son of God, much better than we, but in him it is not and will not redound to eternal life; for knowing, he yet rebels; knowing he yet is disobedient; he will not receive the truth; he will not abide in the truth; hence he is Perdition, and there is no salvation for him. The same doctrine applies to me and to you and to all the sons and daughters of God who have judgment and knowledge and are able to reason between cause and effect, and determine the right from the wrong and the good from the evil and who are capable of seeing the light and distinguishing it from the darkness."{{ref|jfs.1916.3}}

Here President Smith says that "the same doctrine applies" to "all the sons ''and daughters'' of God,"—perhaps his emphasis was on the need for obedience and to forgo rebellion, rather than the risk of perdition.

===Joseph Fielding Smith===

In 1958, Joseph Fielding Smith suggested to many readers that he shared his father's view that only priesthood holders risked becoming be sons of perdition:

:I think I am safe in saying that no man can become a Son of Perdition until he has known the light. Those who have never received the light are not to become Sons of Perdition. They will be punished if they rebel against God They will have to pay the price of their sinning, but it is only those who have ''the light through the priesthood and through the power of God and through their membership in the Church'' who will be banished forever from his influence into outer darkness to dwell with the devil and his angels. That is a punishment that will not come to those who have never known the truth. Bad as they may suffer, and awful as their punishment may be, they are not among that group which is to suffer the eternal death and banishment from all influence concerning the power of God {{ea}}.{{ref|smith1}}

The next day, during Priesthood Session, President Stephen L Richards said:

: It is a tremendous responsibility to bear the Holy Priesthood. I wish all of you -- perhaps all did not -- had heard what President Joseph Fielding Smith told us yesterday, something I have long believed, and I was glad to have sanction for my belief. He said in substance that there will be ''no Sons of Perdition who do not hold the Priesthood''. I have believed that for years because I do not think that the Lord in his mercy would ever condemn a man to that indescribable penalty of being put out entirely from the Kingdom and from all grace unless that man knew that Jesus was the Christ, unless he knew the power of the Christ, and he could only know that, I think by holding the Priesthood. I believe that in the main that can be said to be true -- that only men who hold the Priesthood of God stand in danger of that terrible penalty of being classed as outcasts {{ea}} .{{ref|richards.86}}

It should be noted, however, that the quote seems to only be referring to men to begin with, and President Richards was speaking to a congregation of men, going on to emphasize the necessity of being worthy of the priesthood—he may have therefore spoken exclusively to the men (i.e., the only ''men'' who can reach perdition are priesthood holders) rather than exclusively ''of'' men (i.e., only ''men with the priesthood'' risk perdition). However, the views expressed by Joseph F. Smith and Brigham Young suggest that Joseph Fielding Smith was probably of the same mind on this point, as was President Richards.

==Evidence for the idea==

In addition, {{s|2|Nephi|2|11}} states clearly that there is opposition in all things.

:For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

For every evil, there is an equal and opposite good and vice versa. It seems logical that if women are capable of exaltation, they are also capable of perdition. Indeed, Joseph Smith's father (Joseph Smith Sr.)—in his capacity as Patriarch of the Church—warned against becoming a "daughter of perdition" through apostasy.{{ref|patriarch.1}}

While Joseph F. Smith was expressing his view that there would be no daughters of perdition, Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon saw things in a different light: "That there will also be daughters of perdition there is no doubt in the minds of the brethren."{{ref|ww.1}}

President Charles W. Penrose described those who go to perdition in similar terms as Joseph F. Smith and others, but did not make ''holding'' the priesthood a requirement, but merely having and rejecting all the blessings of the gospel:

:The "sons of perdition" are ''those who have received the Gospel, those to whom the Father has revealed the Son; those who know something concerning the plan of salvation; those who have had keys placed in their hands by which they could unlock the mysteries of eternity; those who received power to ascend to the highest pinnacle of the celestial glory; those who received power sufficient to overcome all things, and who, instead of using it for their own salvation, and in the interest of the salvation of others, prostituted that power and turned away from that which they knew to be true, denying the Son of God and putting Him to an open shame''. All such live in the spirit of error, and they love it and roll it under the tongue as a sweet morsel; they are governed by Satan, becoming servants to him whom they list to obey, they become the sons of perdition, doomed to suffer the wrath of God reserved for the devil and his angels. And for them, having sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no forgiveness either in this world or the world to come. But all the rest Christ will save, through the plan of human redemption prepared in the beginning before the world was {{ea}}.{{ref|penrose.1}}

Elder Melvin J. Ballard was explicit in labeling both "sons and daughters" as "sons of perdition":

:"[God] has other sons and daughters who do not even attain unto the telestial kingdom. They are sons of perdition out with the devil and his angels, and though the Father has grieved over them, he still has not the power to rescue and save them because He gave them free agency, and they used that in such a manner that they have shut themselves out from His presence. But He is justified. He has performed His full duty by them."{{ref|ballard.1}}

Rodney Turner, a former professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University, made perdition open to both genders:

:"Satan is called perdition. (D&C 76:26.) Therefore, all who yield to his enticings and die in their sins are sons (or daughters) of perdition and will have to suffer in hell for a given length of time. (Moses 7:37-39.) The risen Christ compared Nephite apostates to Judas: 'For they are led away captive by him [Satan] even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver.' (3 Ne. 27:32.) Those Gentiles who deny Christ 'shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy.' (3 Ne. 29:7.) 'No mercy' means they must bear the full weight of divine justice (the wrath of God or hell) before being saved. They are temporary sons or daughters of perdition as opposed to those who, failing to ever repent, are termed the "filthy still" (D&C 88:35, 102) and are consigned to the fullness of the second death (D&C 29:27-30, 41)."{{ref|turner.1}}

:"Between now and the last judgment, billions of men and women will be transferring their memberships from one church to the other! Those who repent, bow the knee, and confess that Jesus is the Christ will be numbered with the church of the Lamb of God (Mosiah 27:31; D&C 76:110-11).
:Those who absolutely refuse to repent will remain 'filthy still'; they will retain their memberships in the church of the devil. They are sons and daughters of Perdition, suffering the damnation of the second death. (Alma 12:12-18; D&C 88:35.)"{{ref|turner.2}}

It should be noted that no church leader has made his stance on this matter a matter of doctrine—from Brigham Young onward, the remark is often couched in language suggesting it is their view or opinion. This is likely why various leaders have not hesitated to express varying points of view.

==Thoughts and reflections==

{{s||DC|76|31-32}} lays out the criteria for being a son of perdition:

:31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
:32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

Therefore, the criteria for becoming a "son of perdition" are:

#Know God's power
#Deny that power

If we argue that women are not capable of this, which of these two things are we saying that women are not capable of? Obviously they are capable of the first and if they aren't capable of the second, then that completely flies in the face of agency.

It is possible that the idea that women are not capable of perdition is part of a phenomenon of so-called "woman worship" that sometimes goes on at church—we may see elements of this in Brigham Young's conviction that women are more pure, and less tainted by the sins of the world, and thus do not risk utter damnation in quite the same way. Social factors also doubtless played a role, since the dangerous enemies of the Church in the 19th century were virtually all men. Social factors should also be considered, since Victorian thought tended to speak of women in exalted, angelic terms—the view was that women were responsible to civilize men and help them control their baser instincts, and their domestic domain was thereby a refuge from the corruption and competition the man's workaday world.

In a modern manifestation of "woman worship," men in the Church often put themselves down, praising the sisters, saying their wives are more righteous than they are, that there are "more women in heaven," mothers are all angels, and so on. It's a nice sentiment, but:

* it may be incorrect–how can we know?
* it can come across as condescending, even if intended sincerely; and
* it does not do justice to the variety of the female mortal experience.

Men who think that women are, as a whole, better may not know enough women or perhaps don't know the women they do know well enough. Women are social networkers and are on average more concerned with the social consequences to their actions (e.g., hurting someone's feelings, betraying someone, being embarrassed, etc.).

The reality is that women are just as human and flawed as men, and capable of good and evil to the same capacity as men. They are simply different and therefore prone to different behaviors. But, on the other hand, perhaps some of this difference in style protects them from the type of behaviors that merit perdition. If so, one can hardly complain!

==Conclusion==

Either stance is consistent with statements by leaders of the Church. It seems, however, that later leaders or authors are more likely to believe that women are capable of perdition. This perhaps owes more to changing and expanding gender roles, and a greater experience with women in all their manifestations than any revelatory change—which has never been claimed by any leader.

At least one Church leader (Melvin J. Ballard) used the expression "sons of perdition" to refer to both women and men, so there is some precedence for using the term in a generic sense. However, others (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith) used it in what could be interpreted as a generic sense, but made other statements which suggest that such a reading would go further than their intent.

There is a chance that daughters of perdition are fundamentally different from sons of perdition, but one could suggest that the difference is not in ''degree'' of transgression, but rather simply ''different'' as it pertains to their genders.

Most Latter-day Saints would regard this as a point of theoretical or hair-splitting interest only—surely no one aspires to be a son/daughter of perdition! This is likely the reason for which we are told so little about the matter. As the Lord told Joseph Smith about those who go to perdition,

:the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again; Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation ({{s||DC|76|45-48}}).

{{NoOfficial}}

==Endnotes==

#{{note|by.222}} {{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=8|start=222}}
#{{note|by.1861}} Brigham Young, "A Few Words on Doctrine," speech in Tabernacle, recorded by George D. Watt, (10:30 am, 8 October 1861), 6–7; see also ''Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864'', Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8), p. 140.
#{{note|by.1}} {{JoD6_1|start=297|author=Brigham Young|date=15 August 1852|title=Extensive Character of the Gospel—Comprehensiveness of Divine Revelation, Etc.}}
#{{note|by.2}} {{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|start=281|date=7 October 1859|title=Union, etc.}}
#{{note|by.3}} {{JoD8_1|author=Brigham Young|start=154|date=26 August 1860|title=The Three Glories}} See also {{JD1|vol=11|start=238|author=Brigham Young}}; {{JD1|vol=17|start=55|author=Brigham Young}}; {{JD1|vol=18|start=39|author=Wilford Woodruff}}; {{JD1|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=19|start=264}} All these discuss God saving all his sons and daughters, save the sons of perdition.
#{{note|by.4}} {{JoD12_1|author=Brigham Young|start=63|date=16 June 1867|title=The Priesthood to Dictate in Temporal As Well As Spiritual Things—Inconsistency of An Equal Division of Property—Let Apostates Alone}}
#{{note|jfs.1903}} Joseph F. Smith quoted in Stan Larson (editor), ''A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudgar Clawson'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1993), 560 (entry for 26 March 1903).
#{{note|jfs.1}} {{CD1|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=4|start=230|date=20 January 1895|article=The Second Death}}
#{{note|jfs.1916.3}} {{CR1|author=Joseph F. Smith|date=April 1916|start=3}}
#{{note|smith1}}{{CR1|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|date=October 1958|start=21}}
#{{note|richards.86}} {{CR1|author=Stephen L Richards|date=October 1958|start=86}}

#{{note|ww.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy2|pages=795}}
#{{note|patriarch.1}} H. Michael Marquardt, comp., ''Early Patriarchal Blessings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'' [Salt Lake City: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2007), 106.
#{{note|penrose.1}} {{JoD24_1|author=Charles W. Penrose|vol=24|start=93|date=4 March 1883|title=The Church of Christ,....}}
#{{note|ballard.1}} Melvin J. Ballard, ''Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard'' (Salt Lake City, Deseret Book Co., 1949), 255–257. Also in Melvin J. Ballard, ''Three Degrees of Glory'' (Independence, Mo: Missions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1922), 32.
#{{note|turner.1}} Rodney Turner, "The Farewell of Jesus," in ''Studies in Scripture: Vol. 5, The Gospels'', edited by Kent P. Jackson, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1986), endnote #20. ISBN 087579064X
#{{note|turner.2}} Rodney Turner, "The Prophet Nephi," in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., ''First Nephi: The Doctrinal Foundation: papers from the Second Annual Book of Mormon Symposium'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), 90. ISBN 0884946479.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Fate of the Sons of Perdition]]

===FAIR web site===

===External links===

===Printed material===
*Matthew B. Brown, ''The Plan of Salvation: Doctrinal Notes and Commentary'' (American Fork, UT: Covenant, ---), ----.

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2009-05-27T16:33:54Z

JohnLynch: /* Questions */

{{Heading1|California Proposition 8: Questions and Myths}}

=Questions=

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did Church Leaders use temple recommend interviews to "Bully" members into supporting Proposition 8?}}
Bishops and Stake Presidents and their counselors who conduct temple recommend interviews are instructed to use specific questions to determine temple worthiness of church members and their ability to receive a temple recommend, a document used to gain access to the temple and which is required to participate in temple ordinances. Leaders conducting these interviews are instructed to not add to nor modify the prescribed questions. These questions are generally focused on acceptance of certain core beliefs regarding Jesus Christ and the restoration of the Gospel, including recognizing the priesthood authority of Church leadership, as well as questions regarding specific moral conduct. Responses are up to the member to provide, based on their own conscience. Leaders who unilaterally questioned a member regarding their support of Proposition 8 during the temple recommend interview may be acting contrary to those instructions if they do so without some specific knowledge that there is questionable conduct on the part of the member. However, one question in particular specifically asks about a member's affiliation with individuals or organizations whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose the teachings of the Church. Members who feel that their public position on Proposition 8 may qualify as support or affiliation with such groups and indicate such to the interviewing leader may be further questioned to better understand the individual's qualification for a temple recommend. The temple recommend interview itself was not endorsed as a platform by Church leadership through which local leaders were expected to encourage support for Proposition 8.

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make several in-kind donations, as reported by the [http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&view=received&page=131 California Secretary of State's website] (last accessed January 31, 2009). There are a number of donations by the Church in the report, all non-monetary:

The following information was taken from the Church Newsroom press release [http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/media-reports-on-proposition-8-filing-uninformed Media Reports on Proposition 8 Filing Uninformed]:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="10%"|Date
!width="20%"|Amount
!width="20%"|Report form
!width="25%"|How report was filed
!width="25%"|Additional information
|-
|30 July 2008
||$19,831.40 (in-kind)
||461
||Filed by mail
||(This report covers the time period from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2008.)
|-
|25 October 2008
||$2,078.97 (in-kind)
||497
||Filed by fax
|-
|30 October 2008
||$333.00 (in-kind)
||497
||Filed by fax
|-
||1 November 2008
||(See additional information)
||497
||Filed by fax
||(Amendment to 30 October filing; did not represent any additional contribution)
|-
|1 November 2008
||$2,531.20 (in-kind)
||497
||Filed by fax
|-
|15 January 2009
||$30,354.85 (in-kind)
||497
||Filed by fax
|-
|'''Sub Total:'''
||'''$55,129.42'''
|-
|30 January 2009
||$134,774.16 (in-kind) Plus the $55,129.42 sub total
||461
||Filed electronically
||(This report covers the time period from 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008.)
|-
|'''Grand Total:'''
||'''$189,903.58 (in-kind)'''
|}

Contributions may be verified in the [http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/ California Secretary of State California Filings Searchable Database], although the Church has pointed out that not all contributions have yet been entered in the database by the State of California.

The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes an in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.

Some news outlets reported on January 30 the Church's final contribution report as $180,000{{ref|latimes.01.30.09}} or $190,000{{ref|sfgate.01.31.09}}. Speculation regarding the reason for this last filing prompted the Church to issue a press release:
:On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
:The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

The press release goes on to respond to specific accusations made by the media regarding this final report. For the full press release, see [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports Church Clarifies Proposition 8 Filing, Corrects Erroneous News Reports], Feb. 2, 2009.

'''Related articles'''
*Dennis Wyatt, [http://www.mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=54&ArticleID=60437 It's an outrage! Mormon church donated $2,864 to Yes on 8 effort], ''Manteca Bulletin.com'' (Nov. 29, 2008)

{{Heading2|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
No. Members wishing to donate were told explicitly that if they chose to donate, the donations had to be made directly to the "ProtectMarriage" organization.

Donations could be made through the online "protectmarriage.com" web site, and members were required to state their name and employer as required by California law. Members were also told that donations should ''not'' go to the Church. In other words, all member donations went directly from the member to the campaign and did not go through any Church processing. In addition, it was made clear to members that donations to the Prop 8 campaign were ''not'' tax deductible.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

According to Barry Lynn, executive director of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" (and who, for the record, was "outraged by the Prop. 8 victory"):

:"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption...While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." {{ref|sfgate.11-28}}

Nonprofit 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities. "The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status." {{ref|sfgate.11-28.2}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the initiation of polygamy, over the move West, over the repeal of polygamy, over the [[Blacks and the priesthood|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.

Those that do seem to receive media attention for leaving the Church over this issue typically appear to be inactive members who left the Church "in spirit" long ago, but used this as an occasion to formalize their exit:

*'''Massachusetts'''. A "37-year-old" member "who had been inactive in the church since he left Utah at age 20, but who formally asked the church to remove his name from its rolls because of its support of Proposition 8." {{ref|boston.globe.1}}
*'''Massachusetts'''. A gay 32-year-old Boston resident who "also resigned after years as an inactive Mormon." {{ref|boston.globe.2}}

According to Church spokesman Michael Otterson, "All the reports we have received indicate that the vast majority of members solidly support the church position. A few may not, and that's their choice. But you could never describe it as a movement. You can only describe it as a ripple." {{ref|boston.com3}}

{{Heading2|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 [[Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|classify us 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. Likewise, we welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with Muslims, Jews, and others who share our values and concerns for society.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|latimes.01.30.09}}Jessica Garrison, [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Jan. 30, 2009).
#{{note|sfgate.01.31.09}}John Wildermuth, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/30/BA7615KLB9.DTL&type=politics Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Jan. 31, 2009).

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service
#{{note|sfgate.11-28}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.11-28.2}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)

#{{note|boston.globe.1}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.2}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.3}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2009-05-27T15:47:58Z

JohnLynch: /* Overview */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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 amendment, 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
[[Image:NoOn8.vandalism.png|center]]

=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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.

'''Further information'''
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, [http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedMonth=10&selectedYear=2008 On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government], BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-response-to-california-supreme-court-decision-on-proposition-8 Church Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8] (May 26, 2009).

=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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

==Initial letter to members==
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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

==Satellite broadcast==
The Church followed up the letter with a satellite broadcast to members on October 8, 2008. During the broadcast, members were told:
<blockquote>
"We invite you tonight to consider the following as your time and circumstances allow. For those with young families, substantial involvement may be out of the question, even though it may matter most to you. For others, however, we hope what we are inviting you to consider tonight will inspire you to respond with your time and your energy."
</blockquote>

Among the suggestions made during the broadcast for member involvement was a request from Elder Russell M. Ballard for young people to make use of the latest communication technology to support Proposition 8:
<blockquote>
“How do we go about that? You are critical in this effort because so many of you are connected. You are engaged in conversations through the use of technologies that were the dreams of science fiction in my day. As most of you know, we encourage members to join in the conversation. Many of you will text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods, and just talk to friends, associates and neighbors. These methods of engaging will be major elements of informing people of the issues and of the coalition’s position. As you do this, please do so in a sensitive manner. Our approach must always be with respect for others and their positions and opinions.”
</blockquote>

{{Heading2|Establishment of call centers}}
Among the plans mentioned by Church leaders during the satellite broadcast was the establishment of call centers. These call centers were set up in individual members' homes within the state of California. Members were to come with their mobile phones, work from coordinated lists, and then make calls. The first pass was to simply poll the people and ascertain where they stood on the issue, and if they were not familiar with it, introduce it to them. There were no "pitch" efforts involved, only education and polling.

Once the polling process was done, the day(s) before the actual election California members gathered together and went through the list of those polled and made calls to remind those considered "yes" or "probably yes" to get out and vote.
The day of the election member began calling in the morning and went to the actual polling locations to check the list of voters. Those who were on the previously compiled list of "yes" and "probably yes" who had not voted were called again. In some areas, callers asked voters who planned to vote "yes" if they knew where their polling place was and in some cases even asked them if they needed a ride to the polls.

These phone banks were not set up to "push" the passage of the proposition, but were instead designed only to be sure
that those who ''favored'' the proposition had every chance and reminder to get out and vote on the day of the election. At no time was there a pressure sale to the voters. When explaining the amendment, members were instructed to state that the proposition was for a constitutional amendment that added the following 14 words to the California constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". If someone asked what that meant, the caller explained that it meant marriage as it has been traditionally defined would be the only form of union recognized as marriage in California, meaning that marriage was only between individuals of the opposite sex.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter and the satellite broadcast, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is ''their'' choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}


In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=The "No on 8" response=
:''"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.''"
:—"Same-Sex Setback," ''Rolling Stone'' (Dec. 11, 2008) 
{{parabreak}}
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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, Proposition 8 was portrayed as ''removing'' marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
:''There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
*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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium] on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
:''What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
:''Nope.''
:''This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.''
:''The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
:—Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg2-2008dec02,0,6411205.column An ugly attack on Mormons], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Dec. 2, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
===The ads===
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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

:Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

:So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about -- Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.
:—Isobel White, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isobel-white/prop-8-and-our-schools_b_150720.html Prop. 8 and our schools -- time to tell it like it is.], ''Huffington Post'', (Dec. 12, 2008)

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

===Claims by the "No on 8" campaign===
The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign: {{ref|edge1}}
*"Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
*Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

===Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign===
The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

*A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims." {{ref|edge2}}

*A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card].

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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 and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."{{ref|bast1}}

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions and myths=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Questions and myths}}

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

*[[/Questions and myths#Questions|Questions]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
** [[/Questions and myths#Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#But what about the companies that the Church owns?|But what about the companies that the Church owns?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?]]
*[[/Questions and myths#Myths|Myths]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8|Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian|Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers|The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign|The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign]]

=Post-election events=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events}}
[[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.1B.png|right]]
:''In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.''
:—Hendrik Hertzberg, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27887428/ (Proposition) Eight is enough], ''The New Yorker'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormon’s need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.
{{parabreak}}
There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

*[[/Post-Election Events#Threats from "No on 8" supporters|Threats from "No on 8" supporters]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Church response|Church response]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Negative reactions|Negative reactions]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Accusations of hatred and bigotry|Accusations of hatred and bigotry]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at LDS places of worship|Protests at LDS places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at other Christian places of worship|Protests at other Christian places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Harassment|Harassment]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Terrorist tactics|Terrorist tactics]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Hacking of Church related web site|Hacking of Church related web site]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Blacklists and boycotts|Blacklists and boycotts]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation of gays and lesbians|Intimidation of gays and lesbians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Absence of support from political leaders|Absence of support from political leaders]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Positive effects|Positive effects]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Expressions of support from other Christians|Expressions of support from other Christians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8]]

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
#{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|edge1}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
#{{note|edge2}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
#{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0lZ8XbmJM advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ Parents]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LdC1RxvZg Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools], Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSCop9BtgdU&feature=related California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

[[de:Proposition_8]]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-21T01:21:24Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-21T01:14:37Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-21T01:12:58Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-21T00:08:20Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-21T00:07:24Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T23:50:59Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T22:13:52Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Notable Latter-day Saints and the average member alike also make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T22:11:06Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Notable Latter-day Saints and the average member alike also make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T21:55:52Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Notable Latter-day Saints and the average member alike also make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T21:47:48Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
[http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
[http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Notable Latter-day Saints also make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T21:46:36Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.htmlfast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
[http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
[http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Notable Latter-day Saints also make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T21:19:52Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, fast offerings are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T21:10:55Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, fast offerings are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-20T20:53:53Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. 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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*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

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations: $2,078.97 (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). In-kind donations are typically for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an organization (the Church) in support of the proposition—items such as travel expenses.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some 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.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any of supporting organization.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' 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 that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
*'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|sowell1}}Thomas Sowell, [http://www.mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?linkTrack=dailyEmail&id=5067 Thomas Sowell: The right to win], ''Mormon Times'' (Nov. 18, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|petition1}}[http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php Proposition 8: Governor Schwarzenegger Respect the Voter's Will] (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T21:33:07Z

JohnLynch: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were supposed to fulfill the request to lend support. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause." The main ways that this support unfolded and that members ended up supporting 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

Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Post-election events=
[[Image:Mormons22million.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various LGBT groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an LGBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the LGBT community and the other LGBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T21:18:43Z

JohnLynch: /* Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|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]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were supposed to fulfill the request to lend support. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause." The main ways that this support unfolded and that members ended up supporting 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

Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities.

=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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|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. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|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.

The Church, however, may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. 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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
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. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Post-election events=
[[Image:Mormons22million.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various LGBT groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an LGBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the LGBT community and the other LGBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}}

=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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T00:55:40Z

JohnLynch: /* Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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]]

{{Heading2|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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=
{{Heading2|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. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron1}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. 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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron1}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T00:45:30Z

JohnLynch: /* Overview */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=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"{{ref|proclamation}}.

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=
{{Heading2|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.{{ref|sosd1}}

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.{{ref|state1}}

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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|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. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|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]]

{{Heading2|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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube 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.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} 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. Records filed with the State of California indicate that 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 straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

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=
{{Heading2|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. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|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." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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" {{ref|wnd1}}

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.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
{{Heading2|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.'' {{ref|ball1}}

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

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
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.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron1}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

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

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|calhate1}} 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.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ 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, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|hunt1}}

*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."{{ref|kabc1}}

*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.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “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). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|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. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|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.
{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.

{{Heading2|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.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron1}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Blacks and the priesthood

2007-05-11T20:04:42Z

JohnLynch: /* Further deails */

{{RacePortal}}
{{Summary}}
==Criticism==

*Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race.
*They are critical of the Church waiting until 1978 to lift the ban on ordaining black members to the priesthood.
*They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines.
*They cite passages from LDS scripture that Latter-day Saints used to provide a rationale for the priesthood ban.
*They question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift, portraying it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

==Introduction==

Members of African descent were restricted from holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood until 1978. Critics with an agenda, as well as sincere seekers with a laudable abhorence of racism have used this fact to portray the former (or present) Church and its members as racist.

Understanding the priesthood ban is sometimes difficult, because the historical record is not entirely clear about the ban's institution. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. Some members believe the ban was commanded by revelation. Others believe that Church leaders responded to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures persisted.

However, once the ban was in place—whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things.

Many modern Protestant denominations believe in a "priesthood of all believers," and settle doctrinal differences via councils, meetings, or plebescites. As new social realities develop (e.g., the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, "gay rights," etc.), denominations adapt or modify previous stances.

This is not how the Church functions, and non-members may not appreciate this fact. Members or leaders of the Church do not feel that they have the right to alter previous practices or doctrines without direct revelation from God. Much as the ban confused and troubled many members—black and white—leaders did not feel at liberty to alter them without divine guidance. It is also important to realize that priesthood, in the LDS tradition, is not a right, nor is it something to be used to grant or enhance spiritual or social "status."

Furthermore, efforts to use political pressure against the Church may have slowed the change, since members do not believe that God will allow the Church to appear 'manipulated' by outside forces to create a convenient 'revelation' merely to satisfy social pressures.

It also important to give credit to Church members' strengths in the pre-1978 period:
* Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did
* Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites
* Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings
* the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together
* the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.
* sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

==Racist doctrine?==

The most unfortunate legacy of the ban is perhaps an aspect that was least intended. Since many members were sincerely concerned about the justice of the ban, many sought to explain it through a variety of hypotheses. Such "doctrinal folklore" was never official, but became widespread as members sought to reconcile their ideas about the justice and mercy of God with the ban's reality. In a good faith effort to understand, members drew on ideas about blacks then current in Protestantism generally.

Leaders of the Church have repeatedly emphasized that such explanations were misguided, and never represented official doctrine.

For example, Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:

:...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

:...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

:...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.{{ref|oaks1}}

Interviewed for a PBS special on the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger [apostles] to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.{{ref|holland1}}

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that members of the LDS church must put aside any thoughts or legacy of racial intolerance or unkindness:

:Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

:Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

:Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

:Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

:Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley1}}

==Further deails==

It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted.

This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.

'''Please consult the sub-page which treats the issue(s) which interest you:'''

* Would God ever deny privileges based on race? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Deny based on race?}}
* What was the origin of the priesthood ban? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Origin of the priesthood ban?}}
* Given that the ban was rescinded in 1978, how should we understand pre-1978 statements by members and leaders of the Church?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Understanding pre-1978 statements}}
* What about LDS scriptures cited in support of the ban? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:LDS scriptures}}
* What can you tell me about lifting the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Lifting the ban}}
* Did social pressure play a role in lifting the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Social pressure?}}
* Are there any previously-taught ideas which have been repudiated by Church leaders since the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Repudiated ideas}}

==Conclusion==

Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why he does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on his part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we ''do'' know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time.

Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|holland1}} Jeffrey R. Holland, Interview, 4 March 2006. {{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html}}
#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20may%202006.htm/the%20need%20for%20greater%20kindness.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===External links===

{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===

{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-23T23:02:51Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s|1|Nephi|13|39-40}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints agree wholeheartedly with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also agree with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints agree whole-heartedly with this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})

Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Which is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven."(as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ may set the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22 This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Fathers plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, not even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics should read their Bibles.

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

The critics need to once again read their Bibles.

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-23T22:59:33Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints agree wholeheartedly with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also agree with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints agree whole-heartedly with this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})

Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Which is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven."(as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ may set the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22 This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Fathers plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, not even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics should read their Bibles.

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

The critics need to once again read their Bibles.

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-23T18:52:46Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints agree wholeheartedly with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also agree with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics malign, teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints agree whole-heartedly with this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})

Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Which is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven."(as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ may set the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22 This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Fathers plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, not even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics should read their Bibles.

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

The critics need to once again read their Bibles.

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-23T18:50:59Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings. In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints agree wholeheartedly with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also agree with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics malign, teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints agree whole-heartedly with this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives?

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})

Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Which is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven."(as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ may set the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22 This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Fathers plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, not even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons have a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) "Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... "({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics should read their Bibles.

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that "there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... " ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, "...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

The critics need to once again read their Bibles.

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God?

2007-03-23T18:41:01Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is God?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Claim: According to Joseph, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." ({{s||D&C|130|22}}) However in John 4:24 we are told "God is Spirit..."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
President Gordon B. Hinckley recently addressed this very old criticism:

:''In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ({{s||Gen|1|26}}).''
:''Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God....''
:''I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"''
:''I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:''
::''"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" ({{s||John|4|24}}).''
:''I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."''
:''...Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.''
:''I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth."''
:<small>—Gordon B. Hinckley, "First Presidency Message: In These Three I Believe," ''Ensign'' (July 2006): 2–8.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0adce2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

It is interesting to note that some early Christians actually used John 4:24 as a proof text to support the notion that God has a body. While Origen (''De Principiis'', 242 {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen122.html}}) didn't approve, he admits "I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because. . .they find it said in the Gospel according to John that 'God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'. . .Spirit according to them [is] to be regarded as nothing less than a body."

Tertullian (''Against Praxeus'', Chapter 7 {{link|url=http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/3978_F06/TertullianAgainstPraxeas.html}}) believed "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

While evangelical scholar Paul Copan {{link|url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html}} views Tertullian's belief in God's corporeality as anti-intellectual and influenced by stoicism, he writes that in Augustine's time "North African Catholics typically believed [in God's corporeality]." Copan indicated that "neo-Platonist Christians in Milan" helped Augustine adopt a belief in an incorporeal God.

The conception of God which Joseph Smith claimed to restore through revelation is clearly a match for the common beliefs of the early Christians—and, that early perspective was later altered and corrupted by philosophical innovations.

'''To read more:'''
*[[God is a Spirit|God is a Spirit]]
*[[Corporeality of God|Corporeality of God]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: God has existed for eternity. But Joseph Smith taught "He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Dr. Phil Roberts says, "In Mormonism God is simply an exalted man. He was born as a man, he was conceived in a natural way and by adherence to a system of Mormonism in a previous world and a previous life through his good works in accordance with that system he became God."
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Very little is known about these matters in LDS doctrine, but Dr. Roberts manages to distort what ''is'' known.

There is no official doctrine on the method by which God/Christ's mortal body was conceived, despite speculation by some early members.

Latter-day Saints do not deny that God has existed for eternity—they believe all intelligence is eternal and uncreated (see {{s||D&C|93|29}}).

Latter-day Saints do not accept the late, non-Biblical trinitarian creeds. Thus, they see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings.

Jesus Christ was:
* born as a mortal
* conceived with a literal, physical body to a literal, physical mother
* lived as a man/mortal
* died
* was resurrected and glorified

Given that Christ was the only one to lead a sinless life, one might agree with Dr. Roberts that "through his good works," He completed His mortal life and was exalted to divine status.

Joseph Smith simply taught that the Father went through the same process as Christ.

Although Christ shared aspects of the mortal experience with us, to argue that He was "simply a man" who became exalted is to distort LDS teaching beyond recognition. Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presume—but do not know—that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus Christ's conception|Conception of Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Mormons believe there are many Gods." (cont.) - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in more than one divine personage. Any Christian who does not embrace the late, non-Biblical trinitarian creeds will understand there to be more than one "God," in the sense of "divine person."

Latter-day Saints and scripture often use the term "God" to denote what may be more properly called "the Godhead." This is the divine unity of love, purpose, and will possessed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are "one God," while remaining distinct divine personages.

While recognizing that more than one being may have divine status, Latter-day Saints reject any attempt to worship any other being, or assume that any other being has greater power than the God of the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught:

:''The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* David L. Paulsen, "The God of Abrham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_God_of_Abraham_Isaac_and_Joseph_Smith.html}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch|chapter=3|title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim (cont.): "...But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 there is only one God, and the rest are simply imaginary." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen ignores the scriptural context and scholarship in his interpretation. The verses in question read:

:As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
:For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

This is followed by a verse not cited by Mr. McElveen:

:But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ({{s|1|Corinthians|8|4-6}})

Mr. McElveen would like us to conclude that because idols are mentioned in verse 4, the "gods many, and lords many" mentioned in verse 5 also refer to idols. It is clear, however, that Paul makes the distinction in verse 5. He says that while there are those that are "called gods," it is true, but he clarifies and distinguishes his meaning in two separate ways.

First, Paul follows this statement, referring to those that are called gods, with the words, "whether in heaven or in earth..."—it is unlikely that idols would be found in heaven!

Secondly, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Then he brings the point home in the next verse, though it is not cited by Mr. McElveen, since it undermines his interpretation.

Paul says that "to us," however, "there is but one God" and "one Lord." He clarifies his point: We are only to worship one God, not many gods, although they do exist. We only follow one Lord, not many Lords, although they do exist.

This is not merely a Latter-day Saint supposition. Origin (A.D. 185–''ca.''254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria, wrote:

:''There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." ''Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god''. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods ''as really existing''. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.''
::<small>–Origen, "Commentary on John," in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers'' (1886-1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978-1981), 10:315. {{ea}}</small>

Thus, Paul distinguishes between two groups of things:
# non-existent gods (idols)
# other divine beings that exist, but are not to be worshipped

Mr. McElveen has similar problems interpreting Old Testament scripture in context, discussed below.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: (cont.) "The Bible says before me there were no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10) neither shall there be after me. That means that all the Mormon teachings about many gods is false. It means there was never a God before this God." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's interpretation of these passages also ignores much context and Biblical scholarship.

In this portion of Isaiah, Jehovah warned Judah to trust in him alone and not to trust in false gods who had no power to deliver them. The passages portray this as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of other nations.

Consider the passage in {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}, where the Lord says

:Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The context is clear in verse 12, which omitted (as is typical for critics who try to use this proof-text against the Latter-day Saints) from the quotation:

:I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no ''strange god'' among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. {{Ia}}

"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.

Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" ({{s||Isaiah|44|9-17}}).

These and similar passages in Isaiah (e.g. {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}; {{s||Isaiah|44|6,8}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|5-6}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|21-22}}; and {{s||Isaiah|46|9-10}}) cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or human deification (see below).

As Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary observed:

: ''Most OT scholars see the early stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., ''the view that there are many Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity'' before whom we should place no other. Similarly, Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge that only the God and father of JC is worthy of our worship and obedience.''
::<small>—AOL on-line discussion, cited [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Whats_with_the_Dudes_at_the_Door.html here]. {{ea}}</small>

In sum, the goal of these verses is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

'''To read more:'''
* [[%22No God beside me%22|Isaiah: "No God beside me"]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">It also means that Mormon men will never become gods. - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's analysis up to here has been superficial and flawed.

LDS doctrine teaches that believers are deified through the grace of Christ. This is a belief common among ancient and modern Christians, though it applies to both men ''and'' women—Mr. McElveen fails to mention the latter.

As one example among many, the early Christian Irenaeus (A.D. 180) wrote:

:''We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.''
::<small>—{{ECF1|start=94}}</small>

Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Mr. McElveen's superficial grasp of Christian theology and history:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Mr. McElveen may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Becoming a God was the lie that the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dave Hunt is quoted saying, "So Mormonism takes the lie of the serpent, it's based on the saying that the lie of the serpent is the truth."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Mr. Hunt might want to read a bit further in his Bible:

:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ({{s||Genesis|3|4-5}}.)

At first glance, it appears Mr. Hunt is right. But if Mr. Hunt had bothered to turn the page in his Bible he would have found that he was spectacularly wrong. After Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, God declares:

:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}}.)

So God says the man is become "as one of us." Is Mr. Hunt trying to contradict God?

The serpent did lie, but the lie wasn't what Mr. Hunt claims. The Serpent lied when he said, "Ye shall not surely die." Man did become mortal and God restricted his access to the tree of life.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God would never condone lying. Yet in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham is told by God to 'Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.' (Abraham 2:24) This contradicts what is in the Bible. Why would God give us the Bible for instruction and life-molding and later give us another testimony of Jesus Christ only to contradict each other? Does God make mistakes?"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This remark betrays an ignorance of extra-Biblical materials, LDS scripture, ''and'' the Bible.

In the ancient ''Genesis Apocryphon'' text, Abraham has the same motives described in the Pearl of Great Price as delivered by Joseph Smith. God tells him:

:[Say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...'

:And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."
::<small>—Geza Vermes, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454.</small>

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail, with this text not available until 1948?

The perspective offered by the Book of Abraham and the ''Genesis Apocyphon'' does not ''contradict'' the Bible—the Bible simply does not tell us why Abraham and Sarah claimed she was his sister ({{s||Genesis|20|2}}). God expresses no displeasure at their choice, and even speaks to the king in a dream to save Sarah. Given Abraham's nobility of character, it is hard to picture him taking this course if he felt God would disapprove.

During Israel's captivity in Egypt, God blessed the Egyptian midwives' decision to lie to Pharaoh about their failure to murder Hebrew infants (see {{s||Exodus|1|19-20}}.)

However, there is an even more dramatic Biblical example of God commanding deception for the greater good—Moses himself.

The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

:And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ({{s||Exodus|3|17}})

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh:

:And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. ({{s||Exodus|3|18}})

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

:And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
:But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ({{s||Exodus|3|21-22}})

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians. (See {{s||Exodus|11|2}}, {{s||Exodus|12|35-36}}.)

Anti-Moses authors could have a field day—they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for the money. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

Yet, Moses did exactly what the Lord told him to do, according to the Bible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the Bible for God to have Abraham cloud his relationship with Sarah for their own protection.

This claim by the producers and cast of The DVD regarding deceit serves as a double edged sword against them. The many misrepresentations of LDS beliefs in this video begs the question of whether or not their deceit is sanctioned by God whereas the deceit of Abraham as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price should be condemned. |-

|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God?

2007-03-23T18:34:42Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is God?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Claim: According to Joseph, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." ({{s||D&C|130|22}}) However in John 4:24 we are told "God is Spirit..."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
President Gordon B. Hinckley recently addressed this very old criticism:

:''In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ({{s||Gen|1|26}}).''
:''Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God....''
:''I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"''
:''I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:''
::''"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" ({{s||John|4|24}}).''
:''I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."''
:''...Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.''
:''I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth."''
:<small>—Gordon B. Hinckley, "First Presidency Message: In These Three I Believe," ''Ensign'' (July 2006): 2–8.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0adce2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

It is interesting to note that some early Christians actually used John 4:24 as a proof text to support the notion that God has a body. While Origen (''De Principiis'', 242 {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen122.html}}) didn't approve, he admits "I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because. . .they find it said in the Gospel according to John that 'God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'. . .Spirit according to them [is] to be regarded as nothing less than a body."

Tertullian (''Against Praxeus'', Chapter 7 {{link|url=http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/3978_F06/TertullianAgainstPraxeas.html}}) believed "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

While evangelical scholar Paul Copan {{link|url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html}} views Tertullian's belief in God's corporeality as anti-intellectual and influenced by stoicism, he writes that in Augustine's time "North African Catholics typically believed [in God's corporeality]." Copan indicated that "neo-Platonist Christians in Milan" helped Augustine adopt a belief in an incorporeal God.

The conception of God which Joseph Smith claimed to restore through revelation is clearly a match for the common beliefs of the early Christians—and, that early perspective was later altered and corrupted by philosophical innovations.

'''To read more:'''
*[[God is a Spirit|God is a Spirit]]
*[[Corporeality of God|Corporeality of God]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: God has existed for eternity. But Joseph Smith taught "He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Dr. Phil Roberts says, "In Mormonism God is simply an exalted man. He was born as a man, he was conceived in a natural way and by adherence to a system of Mormonism in a previous world and a previous life through his good works in accordance with that system he became God."
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Very little is known about these matters in LDS doctrine, but Dr. Roberts manages to distort what ''is'' known.

There is no official doctrine on the method by which God/Christ's mortal body was conceived, despite speculation by some early members.

Latter-day Saints do not deny that God has existed for eternity—they believe all intelligence is eternal and uncreated (see {{s||D&C|93|29}}).

Latter-day Saints do not accept the late, non-Biblical trinitarian creeds. Thus, they see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings.

Jesus Christ was:
* born as a mortal
* conceived with a literal, physical body to a literal, physical mother
* lived as a man/mortal
* died
* was resurrected and glorified

Given that Christ was the only one to lead a sinless life, one might agree with Dr. Roberts that "through his good works," He completed His mortal life and was exalted to divine status.

Joseph Smith simply taught that the Father went through the same process as Christ.

Although Christ shared aspects of the mortal experience with us, to argue that He was "simply a man" who became exalted is to distort LDS teaching beyond recognition. Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presume—but do not know—that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus Christ's conception|Conception of Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Mormons believe there are many Gods." (cont.) - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in more than one divine personage. Any Christian who does not embrace the late, non-Biblical trinitarian creeds will understand there to be more than one "God," in the sense of "divine person."

Latter-day Saints and scripture often use the term "God" to denote what may be more properly called "the Godhead." This is the divine unity of love, purpose, and will possessed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are "one God," while remaining distinct divine personages.

While recognizing that more than one being may have divine status, Latter-day Saints reject any attempt to worship any other being, or assume that any other being has greater power than the God of the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught:

:''The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* David L. Paulsen, "The God of Abrham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_God_of_Abraham_Isaac_and_Joseph_Smith.html}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch|chapter=3|title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim (cont.): "...But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 there is only one God, and the rest are simply imaginary." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen ignores the scriptural context and scholarship in his interpretation. The verses in question read:

:As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
:For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

This is followed by a verse not cited by Mr. McElveen:

:But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ({{s|1|Corinthians|8|4-6}})

Mr. McElveen would like us to conclude that because idols are mentioned in verse 4, the "gods many, and lords many" mentioned in verse 5 also refer to idols. It is clear, however, that Paul makes the distinction in verse 5. He says that while there are those that are "called gods," it is true, but he clarifies and distinguishes his meaning in two separate ways.

First, Paul follows this statement, referring to those that are called gods, with the words, "whether in heaven or in earth..."—it is unlikely that idols would be found in heaven!

Secondly, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Then he brings the point home in the next verse, though it is not cited by Mr. McElveen, since it undermines his interpretation.

Paul says that "to us," however, "there is but one God" and "one Lord." He clarifies his point: We are only to worship one God, not many gods, although they do exist. We only follow one Lord, not many Lords, although they do exist.

This is not merely a Latter-day Saint supposition. Origin (A.D. 185–''ca.''254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria, wrote:

:''There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." ''Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god''. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods ''as really existing''. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.''
::<small>–Origen, "Commentary on John," in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers'' (1886-1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978-1981), 10:315. {{ea}}</small>

Thus, Paul distinguishes between two groups of things:
# non-existent gods (idols)
# other divine beings that exist, but are not to be worshipped

Mr. McElveen has similar problems interpreting Old Testament scripture in context, discussed below.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: (cont.) "The Bible says before me there were no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10) neither shall there be after me. That means that all the Mormon teachings about many gods is false. It means there was never a God before this God." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's interpretation of these passages also ignores much context and Biblical scholarship.

In this portion of Isaiah, Jehovah warned Judah to trust in him alone and not to trust in false gods who had no power to deliver them. The passages portray this as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of other nations.

Consider the passage in {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}, where the Lord says

:Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The context is clear in verse 12, which omitted (as is typical for critics who try to use this proof-text against the Latter-day Saints) from the quotation:

:I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no ''strange god'' among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. {{Ia}}

"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.

Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" ({{s||Isaiah|44|9-17}}).

These and similar passages in Isaiah (e.g. {{s||Isaiah|43|10-11}}; {{s||Isaiah|44|6,8}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|5-6}}; {{s||Isaiah|45|21-22}}; and {{s||Isaiah|46|9-10}}) cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or human deification (see below).

As Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary observed:

: ''Most OT scholars see the early stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., ''the view that there are many Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity'' before whom we should place no other. Similarly, Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge that only the God and father of JC is worthy of our worship and obedience.''
::<small>—AOL on-line discussion, cited [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Whats_with_the_Dudes_at_the_Door.html here]. {{ea}}</small>

In sum, the goal of these verses is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

'''To read more:'''
* [[%22No God beside me%22|Isaiah: "No God beside me"]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">It also means that Mormon men will never become gods. - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's analysis up to here has been superficial and flawed.

LDS doctrine teaches that believers are deified through the grace of Christ. This is a belief common among ancient and modern Christians, though it applies to both men ''and'' women—Mr. McElveen fails to mention the latter.

As one example among many, the early Christian Irenaeus (A.D. 180) wrote:

:''We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.''
::<small>—{{ECF1|start=94}}</small>

Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Mr. McElveen's superficial grasp of Christian theology and history:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Mr. McElveen may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Becoming a God was the lie that the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dave Hunt is quoted saying, "So Mormonism takes the lie of the serpent, it's based on the saying that the lie of the serpent is the truth."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Mr. Hunt might want to read a bit further in his Bible:

:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ({{s||Genesis|3|4-5}}.)

At first glance, it appears Mr. Hunt is right. But if Mr. Hunt had bothered to turn the page in his Bible he would have found that he was spectacularly wrong. After Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, God declares:

:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.... ({{s||Genesis|3|22}}.)

So God says the man is become "as one of us." Is Mr. Hunt trying to contradict God?

The serpent did lie, but the lie wasn't what Mr. Hunt claims. The Serpent lied when he said, "Ye shall not surely die." Man did become mortal and God restricted his access to the tree of life.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God would never condone lying. Yet in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham is told by God to 'Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.' (Abraham 2:24) This contradicts what is in the Bible. Why would God give us the Bible for instruction and life-molding and later give us another testimony of Jesus Christ only to contradict each other? Does God make mistakes?"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This remark betrays an ignorance of extra-Biblical materials, LDS scripture, ''and'' the Bible.

In the ancient ''Genesis Apocryphon'' text, Abraham has the same motives described in the Pearl of Great Price as delivered by Joseph Smith. God tells him:

:[Say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...'

:And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."
::<small>—Geza Vermes, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454.</small>

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail, with this text not available until 1948?

The perspective offered by the Book of Abraham and the ''Genesis Apocyphon'' does not ''contradict'' the Bible—the Bible simply does not tell us why Abraham and Sarah claimed she was his sister ({{s||Genesis|20|2}}). God expresses no displeasure at their choice, and even speaks to the king in a dream to save Sarah. Given Abraham's nobility of character, it is hard to picture him taking this course if he felt God would disapprove.

During Israel's captivity in Egypt, God blessed the Egyptian midwives' decision to lie to Pharaoh about their failure to murder Hebrew infants (see {{s||Exodus|1|19-20}}.)

However, there is an even more dramatic Biblical example of God commanding deception for the greater good—Moses himself.

The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

:And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ({{s||Exodus|3|17}})

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh:

:And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. ({{s||Exodus|3|18}})

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

:And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
:But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ({{s||Exodus|3|21-22}})

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians. (See {{s||Exodus|11|2}}, {{s||Exodus|12|35-36}}.)

Anti-Moses authors could have a field day—they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for the money. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

Yet, Moses did exactly what the Lord told him to do, according to the Bible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the Bible for God to have Abraham cloud his relationship with Sarah for their own protection.

The DVD cast and producers had best hope that God endorses deception at least occasionally—they have certainly provided a great deal of false information in their misguided zeal to attack "the Mormons."
|-

|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus?

2007-03-23T18:05:52Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is Jesus?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus Christ?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video avoided quoting any of the many LDS statements about Jesus Christ which would allow the LDS and their scriptures to speak for themselves. Instead, the DVD focused on a few ideas out of context, while assuming that the non-Biblical creeds—to which the producers and contributers apparently subscribe—are the proper interpretation of the Bible.

The LDS believe that Jesus Christ's role is central to our Heavenly Father's plan. Christ is unique in several respects from all other beings and spirit children of God:
* Jesus was and is perfect
* Jesus is God (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/1#2 John 1:1-2], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/6#6 Hebrews 1:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/16#26 1 Nephi 11:16–26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/13#13 D&C 76:13]).
* Jesus is the Creator (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/3#3 John 1:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1#6 Hebrews 1:1–6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/3/3#3 Mosiah 3:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/14/12#12 Helaman 14:12], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/2/1#1 Moses 2:1]).
* Jesus obeyed the Father in all things (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/1/11#11 3 Nephi 11:11]).
* Jesus was chosen and foreordained to be the Redeemer (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/43/11#11 Isaiah 43:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/13/28#34 Mosiah 13:28–34], [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/9/15#15 3 Nephi 9:15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/4/2#2 Moses 4:2]).
* Jesus is the Mediator between God and humanity (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/6#6 John 14:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/2/5#5 1 Timothy 2:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/8/5#5 Hebrews 8:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/28#28 2 Nephi 2:28], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/69#69 D&C 76:69]).
* Jesus was "the Only Begotten"—only He, of all God's children, had a physical inheritance in His body from God the Father. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/14#14 John 1:14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/16#16 John 3:16], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/3#3 John 14:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/4/11#11 Jacob 4:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/12/33#34 Alma 12:33–34]).
'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Twelve Apostles|article=The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|date=December 2004|start=4}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20december%202004.htm/the%20living%20christ%20the%20testimony%20of%20the%20apostles%20the%20church%20of%20jesus%20christ%20of%20latterday%20saints.htm}}
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do LDS worship a 'different' Jesus?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There can be no greater contrast than the Jesus of the Bible with the Jesus of Mormonism." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Bible Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This statement is inflammatory and misleading. Latter-day Saints find such a characterization offensive and unfair. More properly, there is a great contrast between the non-Biblical ''creeds'' and the scriptural record as understood by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints have no quarrel with the Bible—they love and revere it, considering it part of God's word to His children. They do not accept, however, the later additions of the creeds.

Just because the Saints' ''interpretation'' of some Biblical passages does not match those of some other denominations does not mean that Mormons are not Christian, or that they do not worship the Jesus of the Bible. Were this the case, there would be no Christians, since every Christian faith differs from some other group in the interpretation of some Bible passage(s).

The DVD will not, of course, tell its viewers that independent surveys show Latter-day Saints more likely to read the Holy Bible during the week than Catholics or Protestants. {{link|url=http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do Latter-day Saints worship a "different Jesus"?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible, and according to history as we believe and the actual work of Jesus Christ, He was God in the flesh, He was eternal with God, coequal uncreated." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Bible Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
This claim illustrates the source of the critics' attack on the Church, which has nothing to do with the Bible itself. Dr. Roberts and the video's producers are ''creedal Christians.'' That is, they accept the creeds which were formulated hundreds of years after Christ's resurrection in an attempt to define the nature of God and Christ. The Latter-day Saints do not accept many of these creeds because they:
# are not found in the Holy Bible or other scripture
# were not taught or believed by Jesus or the early Christians
# were developed only with the addition of non-scriptural ideas and concepts (e.g. Greek philosophy)

Dr. Roberts believes that his creedal beliefs are scriptural, thus his appeal to history as authority in the above statement. The Latter-day Saints, and many Christian scholars of religious history, believe otherwise—they realize and admit that non-scriptural ideas had to be added to the Bible to formulate the creeds.

Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Jesus was God in the flesh and eternal with God, for this is the testimony of scripture. They do not accept the later creedal additions of being "coequal uncreated," (though they understand 'uncreated' in a different sense than the creeds, as mentioned below).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]: History of the creeds by non-LDS Christian authors and historians
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"Claim: Nothing existed prior to the creator, which is Christ.... Jesus created all things and nothing existed prior to that creation." – John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor McCartney demonstrates that, once again, the video's quarrel is not with scripture, but with the Latter-day Saints' reluctance to accept the ''creedal interpretation'' of scripture.

Pastor McCarney advocates the doctrine of creation out of nothing—sometimes called ''creatio ex nihilo.'' This doctrine holds that only God existed, and He created all other beings and things out of absolute nothiness.

This doctrine is not biblical, but draws again on the influence of Greek thought in later Christian centuries—the Latter-day Saints therefore do not accept Biblical interpretations which rely on later creeds.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creatio ex nihilo|Creation out of nothing]]: A non-Biblical doctrine from the second century A.D.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Mormons don't believe Jesus was the creator of all things.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, this claim arises out of a commitment to the creed of ''creatio ex nihilo,'' not the Bible itself.

The LDS believe that some things simply cannot be created—"intelligence" and matter (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/29#29 D&C 93:29]). Thus, the LDS believe that God created all things ''that required'' creation, through Jesus Christ.

Under the ''ex nihilo'' creed, God cannot be created, so He exists necessarily. Creedal Christians see no contradiction in saying God created all things, even when He did not create Himself. Likewise, LDS Christians see no contradiction in claiming Jesus created all things, even if there are some things (like God) which are eternal and require no creation.

Latter-day Saints believe that, through the power of the Father, Christ is the creative agent behind everything that was, is, or will be created.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/31 Jesus Christ, Creator]: LDS scriptures topical guide.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Does Colossians 1:17 teach that Jesus created all things and even the angels (including Satan) out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Creedal Christians believe in the post-Biblical doctrine of ''[[creatio ex nihilo]]'' (creation out of nothing). Because this is how they understand the idea of creation, they read it into these verses.

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with the doctrine taught in Colossians. They emphatically believe that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ. The video is misleading to suggest otherwise.

As one author observed, the Greek text does not teach ''ex nihilo,'' but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb ''ktidzo'' "carried an architectural connotation...as in 'to build' or 'establish' a city.... Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material."

One must not overlook {{s|2|Corinthians|4|18}}, which states that "the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal"—suggesting that aspects of the created "unseen world" are ''eternal'', despite the exercise of God's creative power upon them.

LDS doctrine sees creation as an act of organizing pre-existing, eternal matter and intelligence. (See {{s||DC|93|29}}, {{s||DC|131|7}}.)

Thus, Jesus certainly participated in the creation of all created things—but He worked with preexisting chaotic materials. The angelic ranks of "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" were also created by Christ, for these beings did not assume their angelic status or form without divine creative power, even though some aspect of their "intelligence" pre-dated God's creative acts in their behalf. Each of us, along with Jesus and Lucifer, are children of our Father in Heaven. Our personality and character were developed during the long pre-mortal existence. During this time the Savior, as the first born of the Father, developed the attributes that allowed God the Father to trust Jesus with the creation of all things that would be created and to assume the divine role of The Son. With that same process Lucifer developed the attributes that led him into sin and rebellion. The difference between Jesus and Lucifer is so great that we cannot fully understand it. The rest of God's children are somewhere in between these two extremes. Because of Jesus's role in the creation Satan's premortal powers and status were dependent upon the creative power and authority of God, exercised through Jesus Christ. The difference between those who followed the Father and those who followed Lucifer is in part dependent upon the eternal aspect of each individual. This may help to explain Satan's antipathy toward Jesus, and his desire to usurp the power and authority of God possessed by Christ (see {{s||Moses|4|1|3}}).

The claim, then, that Jesus and Satan were merely peers, misunderstands and misrepresents the LDS doctrine of creation, and Jesus' pre-eminent role in it.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
*{{Ensign|author=Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch|article=The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation|vol=19|start=27|end=33|date=January 1989}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20january%201989.htm/the%20restoration%20of%20major%20doctrines%20through%20joseph%20smith%20the%20godhead%20mankind%20and%20the%20creation.htm}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch |title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man:Creatio Ex Nihilo|chapter=3}}
*{{BYUS|author=Keith Norman|article=Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity|vol=17|num=3|date=1977|start=291|end=318}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=855}}
*{{FR-11-2-3}}
*{{FR-17-2-8}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What are the implications of claiming that Jesus/God created Satan out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD opines that "there is an infinite chasm between Jesus Christ, creator God, and Satan, creature who has sinned."

This conclusion reflects the creedal conviction that God is totally 'other'—i.e., He is completely different in all aspects from His creations, including humanity. However, the video does not explore the implications of the claim that God created Satan out of nothing. If God did, as claimed, create Satan ''ex nihilo,'' then God could have created Satan differently. Satan (and all mankind) could have been created with a nature that would not predispose him to commit sin.

If God could have created Satan (or a mortal) in a different way, then in some sense God is responsible for their evil natures. The sins and evils committed by fallen beings become ''God's'' fault, because He could have made things differently, but did not. How is it then just to judge or punish a sinner for sin if the sinful nature was created by God out of nothing?

This is a major philosophical problem for those who embrace ''creatio ex nihilo.'' The LDS view, in which God creates by ''organizing'' eternal matter and intelligence, avoids these problems. Satan sinned because of his eternal nature: he made free choices based on who he has always been. Likewise, mortals cannot blame God for their sins, because their core nature was not created by God.

A Latter-day Saint Christian would argue that it does not lessen God for Him to allow other beings to make free choices and receive the consequences. Rather, they believe that there is a "vast gulf" between the loving God of the Bible and a belief that God wilfully creates degenerate, fallen, and sinful beings and then punishes them for natures which He gave them.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Satan's potential role in God's plan misrepresented</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video does not accurately portray all of the LDS ideas regarding the "council in heaven" which are necessary for full understanding. The video correctly notes that two spirit children of God (Jesus and Satan) offered to play a role in God's plan for human happiness. However, it neglects to mention that Satan's offer was not welcome or anticipated. Satan's plan, and his offer to implement it, was never consistent with God the Father's plan of salvation, and if accepted it would have meant the end of any future opportunities for His children. Therefore, God would never have countenanced the implementation of
Satan's offer. God says that Jesus' role was determined from the beginning: "my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and
the glory be thine forever" ({{s||Moses|4|2}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan|Relationship of Jesus and Satan]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The Bible also teaches that Jesus has eternally been God, while Joseph Smith teaches that Jesus had to achieve Godhood."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that Jesus is the Eternal God, Alpha and Omega, from everlasting to everlasting. Despite Christ's divinity, He nevertheless was obedient to God His Father, and "received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness" ({{s||DC|93|13}}).

The Saints thus accept the Biblical witness that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" ({{s||Luke|2|52}}). If Jesus increased in wisdom, then there was a time when He had less wisdom than He now has. As Paul taught, Jesus meekly obeyed the Father in all things, and accepted a status below the role of God to which He was entitled:

:[Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
:Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
:And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ({{s||Philippians|2|6-11}})

Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to the Father, and was exalted thereafter.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did President Hinckley admit that the Church does not worship the Biblical Jesus?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video makes much of a statement by Church President Gordon B. Hinckley:

:''No I don't believe in the traditional Christ. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the Fullness of Times.''
::<small>—President Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Deseret News'' (20 June 1998): 7. {{ss|url=DVD-25March2007:HinckleySS1}}</small>

It should be emphasized that the "traditions" alluded to by President Hinckley are the non-Biblical creeds. But, members of the Church do not reject the Biblical witness—it is partly ''because'' the creeds are not Biblical that the LDS do not use them.

President Hinckley continues to explain that revelation teaches more about God than philosophical speculation, and insists that he is a Christian, but the video does not quote this material:

:''[Jesus], together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.''
:''Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.''

President Hinckley elsewhere made it clear that we differ with other Christians over the creeds, not over the scriptural witness:

:''As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought. It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of Nephi, “talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins” ({{s|2|Nephi|25|26}}).''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|start=90|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=We Look to Christ|date=May 2002}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=69e58c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks|article=Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity|date=March 1988|start=7}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9649d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* {{Newera1|author=Stephen E. Robinson|article=Are Mormons Christians?|start=41|date=May 1988}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:20%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus?

2007-03-23T17:59:43Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is Jesus?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus Christ?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video avoided quoting any of the many LDS statements about Jesus Christ which would allow the LDS and their scriptures to speak for themselves. Instead, the DVD focused on a few ideas out of context, while assuming that the non-Biblical creeds—to which the producers and contributers apparently subscribe—are the proper interpretation of the Bible.

The LDS believe that Jesus Christ's role is central to our Heavenly Father's plan. Christ is unique in several respects from all other beings and spirit children of God:
* Jesus was and is perfect
* Jesus is God (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/1#2 John 1:1-2], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/6#6 Hebrews 1:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/16#26 1 Nephi 11:16–26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/13#13 D&C 76:13]).
* Jesus is the Creator (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/3#3 John 1:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1#6 Hebrews 1:1–6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/3/3#3 Mosiah 3:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/14/12#12 Helaman 14:12], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/2/1#1 Moses 2:1]).
* Jesus obeyed the Father in all things (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/1/11#11 3 Nephi 11:11]).
* Jesus was chosen and foreordained to be the Redeemer (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/43/11#11 Isaiah 43:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/13/28#34 Mosiah 13:28–34], [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/9/15#15 3 Nephi 9:15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/4/2#2 Moses 4:2]).
* Jesus is the Mediator between God and humanity (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/6#6 John 14:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/2/5#5 1 Timothy 2:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/8/5#5 Hebrews 8:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/28#28 2 Nephi 2:28], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/69#69 D&C 76:69]).
* Jesus was "the Only Begotten"—only He, of all God's children, had a physical inheritance in His body from God the Father. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/14#14 John 1:14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/16#16 John 3:16], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/3#3 John 14:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/4/11#11 Jacob 4:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/12/33#34 Alma 12:33–34]).
'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Twelve Apostles|article=The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|date=December 2004|start=4}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20december%202004.htm/the%20living%20christ%20the%20testimony%20of%20the%20apostles%20the%20church%20of%20jesus%20christ%20of%20latterday%20saints.htm}}
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do LDS worship a 'different' Jesus?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There can be no greater contrast than the Jesus of the Bible with the Jesus of Mormonism." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Bible Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This statement is inflammatory and misleading. Latter-day Saints find such a characterization offensive and unfair. More properly, there is a great contrast between the non-Biblical ''creeds'' and the scriptural record as understood by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints have no quarrel with the Bible—they love and revere it, considering it part of God's word to His children. They do not accept, however, the later additions of the creeds.

Just because the Saints' ''interpretation'' of some Biblical passages does not match those of some other denominations does not mean that Mormons are not Christian, or that they do not worship the Jesus of the Bible. Were this the case, there would be no Christians, since every Christian faith differs from some other group in the interpretation of some Bible passage(s).

The DVD will not, of course, tell its viewers that independent surveys show Latter-day Saints more likely to read the Holy Bible during the week than Catholics or Protestants. {{link|url=http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103}}

'''To read more:'''
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do Latter-day Saints worship a "different Jesus"?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible, and according to history as we believe and the actual work of Jesus Christ, He was God in the flesh, He was eternal with God, coequal uncreated." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Bible Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
This claim illustrates the source of the critics' attack on the Church, which has nothing to do with the Bible itself. Dr. Roberts and the video's producers are ''creedal Christians.'' That is, they accept the creeds which were formulated hundreds of years after Christ's resurrection in an attempt to define the nature of God and Christ. The Latter-day Saints do not accept many of these creeds because they:
# are not found in the Holy Bible or other scripture
# were not taught or believed by Jesus or the early Christians
# were developed only with the addition of non-scriptural ideas and concepts (e.g. Greek philosophy)

Dr. Roberts believes that his creedal beliefs are scriptural, thus his appeal to history as authority in the above statement. The Latter-day Saints, and many Christian scholars of religious history, believe otherwise—they realize and admit that non-scriptural ideas had to be added to the Bible to formulate the creeds.

Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Jesus was God in the flesh and eternal with God, for this is the testimony of scripture. They do not accept the later creedal additions of being "coequal uncreated," (though they understand 'uncreated' in a different sense than the creeds, as mentioned below).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]: History of the creeds by non-LDS Christian authors and historians
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"Claim: Nothing existed prior to the creator, which is Christ.... Jesus created all things and nothing existed prior to that creation." – John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor McCartney demonstrates that, once again, the video's quarrel is not with scripture, but with the Latter-day Saints' reluctance to accept the ''creedal interpretation'' of scripture.

Pastor McCarney advocates the doctrine of creation out of nothing—sometimes called ''creatio ex nihilo.'' This doctrine holds that only God existed, and He created all other beings and things out of absolute nothiness.

This doctrine is not biblical, but draws again on the influence of Greek thought in later Christian centuries—the Latter-day Saints therefore do not accept Biblical interpretations which rely on later creeds.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creatio ex nihilo|Creation out of nothing]]: A non-Biblical doctrine from the second century A.D.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Mormons don't believe Jesus was the creator of all things.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, this claim arises out of a commitment to the creed of ''creatio ex nihilo,'' not the Bible itself.

The LDS believe that some things simply cannot be created—"intelligence" and matter (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/29#29 D&C 93:29]). Thus, the LDS believe that God created all things ''that required'' creation, through Jesus Christ.

Under the ''ex nihilo'' creed, God cannot be created, so He exists necessarily. Creedal Christians see no contradiction in saying God created all things, even when He did not create Himself. Likewise, LDS Christians see no contradiction in claiming Jesus created all things, even if there are some things (like God) which are eternal and require no creation.

Latter-day Saints believe that, through the power of the Father, Christ is the creative agent behind everything that was, is, or will be created.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/31 Jesus Christ, Creator]: LDS scriptures topical guide.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Does Colossians 1:17 teach that Jesus created all things and even the angels (including Satan) out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Creedal Christians believe in the post-Biblical doctrine of ''[[creatio ex nihilo]]'' (creation out of nothing). Because this is how they understand the idea of creation, they read it into these verses.

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with the doctrine taught in Colossians. They emphatically believe that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ. The video is misleading to suggest otherwise.

As one author observed, the Greek text does not teach ''ex nihilo,'' but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb ''ktidzo'' "carried an architectural connotation...as in 'to build' or 'establish' a city.... Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material."

One must not overlook {{s|2|Corinthians|4|18}}, which states that "the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal"—suggesting that aspects of the created "unseen world" are ''eternal'', despite the exercise of God's creative power upon them.

LDS doctrine sees creation as an act of organizing pre-existing, eternal matter and intelligence. (See {{s||DC|93|29}}, {{s||DC|131|7}}.)

Thus, Jesus certainly participated in the creation of all created things—but He worked with preexisting chaotic materials. The angelic ranks of "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" were also created by Christ, for these beings did not assume their angelic status or form without divine creative power, even though some aspect of their "intelligence" pre-dated God's creative acts in their behalf. Each of us, along with Jesus and Lucifer, are children of our Father in Heaven. Our personality and character were developed during the long pre-mortal existence. During this time the Savior, as the first born of the Father, developed the attributes that allowed God the Father to trust Jesus with the creation of all things that would be created and to assume the divine role of The Son. With that same process Lucifer developed the attributes that led him into sin and rebellion. The difference between Jesus and Lucifer is so great that we cannot fully understand it. The rest of God's children are somewhere in between these two extremes. Because of Jesus's role in the creation Satan's premortal powers and status were dependent upon the creative power and authority of God, exercised through Jesus Christ&mdash. The difference between those who followed the Father and those who followed Lucifer is in part dependent upon the eternal aspect of each individual. This may help to explain Satan's antipathy toward Jesus, and his desire to usurp the power and authority of God possessed by Christ (see {{s||Moses|4|1|3}}).

The claim, then, that Jesus and Satan were merely peers, misunderstands and misrepresents the LDS doctrine of creation, and Jesus' pre-eminent role in it.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
*{{Ensign|author=Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch|article=The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation|vol=19|start=27|end=33|date=January 1989}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20january%201989.htm/the%20restoration%20of%20major%20doctrines%20through%20joseph%20smith%20the%20godhead%20mankind%20and%20the%20creation.htm}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch |title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man:Creatio Ex Nihilo|chapter=3}}
*{{BYUS|author=Keith Norman|article=Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity|vol=17|num=3|date=1977|start=291|end=318}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=855}}
*{{FR-11-2-3}}
*{{FR-17-2-8}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What are the implications of claiming that Jesus/God created Satan out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD opines that "there is an infinite chasm between Jesus Christ, creator God, and Satan, creature who has sinned."

This conclusion reflects the creedal conviction that God is totally 'other'—i.e., He is completely different in all aspects from His creations, including humanity. However, the video does not explore the implications of the claim that God created Satan out of nothing. If God did, as claimed, create Satan ''ex nihilo,'' then God could have created Satan differently. Satan (and all mankind) could have been created with a nature that would not predispose him to commit sin.

If God could have created Satan (or a mortal) in a different way, then in some sense God is responsible for their evil natures. The sins and evils committed by fallen beings become ''God's'' fault, because He could have made things differently, but did not. How is it then just to judge or punish a sinner for sin if the sinful nature was created by God out of nothing?

This is a major philosophical problem for those who embrace ''creatio ex nihilo.'' The LDS view, in which God creates by ''organizing'' eternal matter and intelligence, avoids these problems. Satan sinned because of his eternal nature: he made free choices based on who he has always been. Likewise, mortals cannot blame God for their sins, because their core nature was not created by God.

A Latter-day Saint Christian would argue that it does not lessen God for Him to allow other beings to make free choices and receive the consequences. Rather, they believe that there is a "vast gulf" between the loving God of the Bible and a belief that God wilfully creates degenerate, fallen, and sinful beings and then punishes them for natures which He gave them.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Satan's potential role in God's plan misrepresented</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video does not accurately portray all of the LDS ideas regarding the "council in heaven" which are necessary for full understanding. The video correctly notes that two spirit children of God (Jesus and Satan) offered to play a role in God's plan for human happiness. However, it neglects to mention that Satan's offer was not welcome or anticipated. Satan's plan, and his offer to implement it, was never consistent with God the Father's plan of salvation, and if accepted it would have meant the end of any future opportunities for His children. Therefore, God would never have countenanced the implementation of
Satan's offer. God says that Jesus' role was determined from the beginning: "my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and
the glory be thine forever" ({{s||Moses|4|2}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan|Relationship of Jesus and Satan]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The Bible also teaches that Jesus has eternally been God, while Joseph Smith teaches that Jesus had to achieve Godhood."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that Jesus is the Eternal God, Alpha and Omega, from everlasting to everlasting. Despite Christ's divinity, He nevertheless was obedient to God His Father, and "received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness" ({{s||DC|93|13}}).

The Saints thus accept the Biblical witness that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" ({{s||Luke|2|52}}). If Jesus increased in wisdom, then there was a time when He had less wisdom than He now has. As Paul taught, Jesus meekly obeyed the Father in all things, and accepted a status below the role of God to which He was entitled:

:[Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
:Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
:And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ({{s||Philippians|2|6-11}})

Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to the Father, and was exalted thereafter.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did President Hinckley admit that the Church does not worship the Biblical Jesus?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video makes much of a statement by Church President Gordon B. Hinckley:

:''No I don't believe in the traditional Christ. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the Fullness of Times.''
::<small>—President Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Deseret News'' (20 June 1998): 7. {{ss|url=DVD-25March2007:HinckleySS1}}</small>

It should be emphasized that the "traditions" alluded to by President Hinckley are the non-Biblical creeds. But, members of the Church do not reject the Biblical witness—it is partly ''because'' the creeds are not Biblical that the LDS do not use them.

President Hinckley continues to explain that revelation teaches more about God than philosophical speculation, and insists that he is a Christian, but the video does not quote this material:

:''[Jesus], together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.''
:''Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.''

President Hinckley elsewhere made it clear that we differ with other Christians over the creeds, not over the scriptural witness:

:''As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought. It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of Nephi, “talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins” ({{s|2|Nephi|25|26}}).''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|start=90|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=We Look to Christ|date=May 2002}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=69e58c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks|article=Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity|date=March 1988|start=7}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9649d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* {{Newera1|author=Stephen E. Robinson|article=Are Mormons Christians?|start=41|date=May 1988}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:20%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD

2007-03-23T17:32:03Z

JohnLynch:

__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__

{| style="width:100%;margin-top:+.7em;background-color:#ffffc0;border:1px solid #ccc"
|
{|style="width:100%;border:solid 0px;background:none"
|-
| style="text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;color:#000"|
<div style="border:none;margin: 0;padding:.1em;color:#000">[[Image:FrontSearchDVD.png]]</div>
|}

| style="font-size:85%;color:#000;padding:0em 0.4em 0em 1em;"|
<div style="font-size:200%;font-weight:bold;text-align:center;">Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith</div>

<div style="font-weight:bold;text-align:center;">Replies and resources addressing the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD<br />
A collaborative effort of FAIR.</div>

On 25 March 2007, a ninety-minute video entitled ''Search for the Truth'' was distributed to thousands of homes across the United States. The video has excellent production values but unfortunately, its contents are not of a similar quality.

Though it purports to be an objective Christian evaluation of the teachings, history, and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it contains much that is innacurate and very little that is balanced. Rather than focus on what they believe, the video's producers have taken it upon themselves to describe and interpret LDS beliefs and teachings, often in ways that would be objectionable or unrecognizable to Latter-day Saints.

The video contains many of the same anti-Mormon claims that misguided critics have been repeating for years. The issues it raises have been repeatedly addressed by faithful Latter-day Saints, but the video does not address or take those responses into account.

This page provides information that will help you compare the video's claims with the actual history, teachings, and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
|}




{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:70%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">A Bold Statement of Purpose</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
'''''"This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus."'''''

These words, silently displayed on-screen, serve as the introduction to a video that claims to contrast the beliefs of Mormonism and the beliefs of Christianity. Although the producers of this video state that it was produced out of love, the numerous mischaracterizations, misrepresentations, errors, and outright falsehoodsit makes it difficult for believing Latter-day Saints to see that expression of love as sincere. It unfortunately perpetuates the same shopworn criticisms of Mormonism that have been answered time and time again.

We agree with the unnamed producers of ''Search for the Truth,'' that only when the truth is known can reasonable decisions be reached. Unfortunately, those who only view this video will never know the whole truth because it is not accurately presented.

In your own "search for the truth," we at FAIR hope you will take the time to learn why many people who already know the information in this video remain faithful, practicing Mormons who try to model their lives after the example of the Lord Jesus Christ.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Table of Contents</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The following Table of Contents addresses the charges made in ''Search for the Truth.'' These are things you won't hear in a short video, and are definitely things the video's producers don't want you to know.

{{DVD25March2007-FullToC}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Other Information</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:letter|Letter to Distributors]]. A copy of the letter distributed with the advance copies of the DVD, providing instructions on how it was to be distributed on March 25, 2007.
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:letter(annotated)|Letter to Distributors (Annotated Version)]]. The same distribution letter, with an annotated commentary included.
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:30%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">About FAIR</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| {{About FAIR}}
|-
|}
|}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Music Video

2007-03-23T17:05:25Z

JohnLynch:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Music Video}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">A very nice music video showing some of God's wonderful creations and a few text-overlay quotations from the Bible reminding us that it is through Christ that we are saved. "Give Me Jesus" is sung by Stephanie LeBarge.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
We appreciate the reminder of God's beautiful creations and that accepting Christ is the path to happiness both in this life and in our life after death. This portion of the video is well-done, includes some gorgeous scenery and lovely music, and we certainly agree with the Bible quotations that admonish us to seek and follow Christ.

|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Latter-day Saint Temples/Endowment/Adam-God and the "Lecture at the Veil"

2007-03-15T20:43:30Z

JohnLynch: /* Answer */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{CreationPortal}}
|-
| {{TemplePortal}}
|}
{{question}}

==Question==
Was "Adam-God" ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony? I've read about something called "the lecture at the veil" that was supposedly in the endowment at one time.

==Answer==
Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:
#The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on [[Adam-God]].)
#The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on [[temple endowment changes]].)

The following{{ref|buerger1}} is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:

:Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today."

:The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

::In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

::Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writng was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

::A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.

:On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

::In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assited him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrfice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

:The veil lecture continued to the turn of the twentieth century, though it is uncertain whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples.

==Conclusion==
The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|buerger1}}David John Buerger, ''The Mysteries of Godliness'' (Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 110–13.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{AdamPrint}}
{{TemplePrint}}

Question: Was Brigham Young a racist?

2007-02-21T20:17:21Z

JohnLynch: /* Question */

{{question}}

==Question==
Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{s||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

==Answer==
In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{s||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{s||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{s||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{s||Psalms|93|1}}; {{s||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.{{ref|tpjs1}})

This continued into the twentieth century. Some LDS leaders were wary of the civil rights movement that started in the 1950s, and publicly stated their concerns. But there were differences of opinion among the brethren on this. At one end was Elder Ezra Taft Benson, who believed that the American civil rights movement was a front for communism; at the other was President Hugh B. Brown, who felt that the Church should publicly support the civil rights movement.{{ref|dombio1}}

From our perspective — as "enlightened" people of the early twenty-first century — virtually everyone in America up until the last few decades held grossly racist beliefs, prophets and other LDS leaders included. But that was the culture of the times, and we, like the rest of society, have progressed (line upon line, precept upon precept, see {{s|2|Nephi|28|30}}) to become better people in this respect, more tolerant, more accepting. Fifty years from now, people will probably look back at ''our'' time and say, "How could ''they'' have been so bigoted?" Or, "How could they have missed issue X, which seems so clear to us now, in retrospect?"

The key point here is that the Lord works with the people who are available. He does not make them into radicals; he gives them just enough light and understanding to lift the Saints a little and make them more fit for the kingdom. In his mercy, God works with people where they are, and does not wait for them to be perfect before he will deign to speak to them.

Non-LDS Biblical commentators have noted this same tendency is present with Biblical prophets:

:Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.{{ref|dummelow1}}

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{s||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{s||Matthew|7|2}}, {{s||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tpjs1}}{{TPJS1|start=269}}
#{{note|dombio1}}See {{RMM1|start=chapter 4}}
#{{note|dummelow1}} James R. Dummelow, ''A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles'' (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), cxxxv.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}