On Wednesday, January 20, in a federal courthouse in San Francisco, plaintiffs in the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger trial challenging the legality of California’s Proposition 8 introduced two documents (over strenuous objections from the defense) indicating close but cautious coordination between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Yes on 8 campaign.
The documents, according to plaintiffs’ witness Gary Segura, a professor of political science at Stanford University, indicated a desire on the part of the Church to create “plausible deniability or respectable distance between the church organization per se and the actual campaign.”
Segura’s words soon rippled across the gay blogosphere, as trial watchers from The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan to Julia Rosen of the California-based Courage Campaign latched onto the phrase “plausible deniability” as an “explosive” indictment of the Mormon Church’s allegedly behind-the-scenes relationship to the Proposition 8 campaign.
But to Mormons in California (both those who supported the Yes on 8 campaign and those who opposed it), the relationship between the church and the Proposition 8 campaign has always been undeniable.
Mormons Account for 75% of Donations
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stated in its official news releases that it acted as part of a “coalition” of faith groups supporting Proposition 8, which amended the California State Consitution to eliminate civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
Says Laura Compton, spokesperson for Mormonsformarriage.com: “I’ve always said that it’s a coalition and the Mormons are Goliath.”
Documents compiled by Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage—including campaign time lines and donor profiles—show that LDS Church ecclesiastical structures, resources, and relationships were fully mobilized to generate the majority of volunteers and donations for the Yes on 8 campaign, even as Church members were coached to handle their Mormonism carefully in campaign contributions and activities.
There was nothing plausibly deniable about the Church’s relationship to the Proposition 8 campaign when, in Sunday meetings on June 29, 2008, a letter from Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Thomas Monson was read over the pulpit of every Mormon congregation in California urging Church members to “do all you can” to support the ballot measure.
Early donations from Mormons were solicited in July, when letters read in Sunday meetings of men’s and women’s church auxiliaries conveyed a $10 million fundraising goal for July and August and instructed Church members to donate exclusively to protectmarriage.com. Donors were asked to identify their home congregation on donation forms, according to campaign observers, so that Mormon congregations could track their progress towards meeting fundraising targets set for each congregation based on their ability to pay as assessed from records of church offerings.
The Church-coordinated fundraising drive intensified in late August, when select LDS Church members identified as potential large donors were invited to participate in conference calls with members of the Quorum of the Seventy, a high-ranking Church leadership body. (Mormon Yes on 8 campaign observers believe that tithing records were used to identify call participants.) On the conference calls, high-ranking church leaders encouraged potential large donors to individually contribute $25,000 to protectmarriage.com.
That’s when Nadine Hansen, a Mormon veteran of the campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment, initiated an effort to document the extent of Mormon funding for the Yes on 8 campaign. During the ERA campaign, Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson had shared with Hansen fundraising disclosure sheets from an anti-ERA group that had raised money in California. Using church directories, Hansen was then able to identify “all but one or two” of the ERA donors as Mormon. Sensing that the Church was pressing ERA-era strategies into service once again, she prepared to undertake the same donor-identification project for Proposition 8 at the Web site mormonsfor8.com.
In early September, a surge of $25,000 donations began to appear in campaign finance records compiled by the California Secretary of State. Hansen and a crew of Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage began to comb large donor records to identify Mormon Church members. By Election Day, mormonsfor8.com volunteers had successfully identified more than 50% of the large donors as members of the LDS Church. “And we know that we did not identify all of the Mormon donors,” Hansen relates. “You can see that in some places virtually all the money that came in came from Mormons. It’s a safe bet to say that Mormons contributed over half the money. It might be as high as 75%.”
Don’t Dress Like a Missionary
Mobilizing highly centralized and hierarchical ecclesiastical structures, Mormons also contributed as much as 80-90% of the volunteer labor for the campaign.
Implementation of a statewide grassroots volunteer structure began in late July, with volunteers coordinated through geographically-organized Mormon ecclesiastical units called “wards” and “stakes.” Church members received “callings,” or ecclesiastical assignments understood by orthodox church members to be divinely inspired, from their local church leaders to serve as regional (or “stake”-level) directors and zip code (or “ward”-level) supervisors for grassroots campaigning. One LDS zipcode supervisor reported that the Mormon Church was “the only member of the Protect Marriage coalition” to participate in the Yes on 8 ground campaign.
Tags: gay marriage, lds, lgbt, mormons, prop 8, proposition 8
The reason the Mormon church sought to downplay it's involvement and create "plausible deniability" was not to conceal from the general public that the Mormon church opposed gay marriage. (That was and is well known).
Rather it was to provide evangelicals with a way to cooperate with Mormons without feeling that they were granting the Mormon Church legitimacy. Most evangelicals teach that Mormons are a non-Christian cult. Evangelical ministers are concerned that if they publicly ally with the Mormon Church on a moral issue such as gay marriage that their flocks will begin to accept Mormons as just another Christian denomination. Similar to the way Catholics became more acceptable to Protestants after allying on the issue of abortion.
Mormons are even more threatening then Catholics, because Mormons proselytize other Christians, and in fact the former religions of newly converted Mormons are often evangelical denominations.
So basically the Mormon Church decided to downplay it's institutional involvement as much as possible so that evangelical ministers could "plausibly deny" that they had accepted Mormons as worthy allies.
One of the reasons the Mormon Church is readily willing to accept such an apparent lack of appreciation for their support is that historically the Mormon Church used to be quite active politically, and because of this activity where severely persecuted. Including attacks by mobs, the seizure and destruction of their property, the imprisonment and murder of church officials, ect.
The reaction of gay groups to Prop 8 passage did nothing to alleviate these fears. Instead it fit perfectly with what Mormons expect from the rest of the world, and has probably convinced them that not only must they keep their future activities secret, but also that the fear of gay marriage victories leading to a curtail of religious freedom is warranted.
One quibble: At this Mormon Studies conference last spring, LDS pollster Gary Lawrence publicly stated that he wrote the “Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails” document.
Interesting Chino-Blanco! Is his admission in writing?
You can watch the 7-second clip of Gary claiming authorship of the "Six Consequences" here.
Transcript of LDS pollster Gary Lawrence: "In fact, the idiot who wrote the Meridian magazine article is me. And the idiot who wrote the 'Six Consequences' is me."
Of course, my all-time favorite clip of Gary is this one: We Want Negative Buzz
You want it, you got it, Gary. Mission accomplished!
Think about it. Evangelicals are taught that Mormons are evil and not Christian. If the Yes on 8 is 75% to 90% a Mormon activity, these Evangelicals will feel that they are essentially acting as peons for Mormon leaders. All of a sudden, they are working with the "devil".
8 would have lost because it would have not been supported by the evangelical masses as fervently as their leaders.
The separation of church and state wasn’t practice in Utah until it was forced to by the US Government. Up until that time, it was overtly, a Theocracy, with Brigham Young as First President, high priest, prophet, seer, revelator and latter Governor. Let’s not forget that the only declared Kingdom, with an anointed king, was declared by the LDS living on Beaver Island located on Lake Michigan. Of course you can mobilize people when you are the voice of god.
Since the State of California does not require NOR record the religion of campaign donors, I'm curious where this statistic came from. Per official election records, a total of about $36M was donated to the Yes on 8 Proposal ($38M against it). Does any thinking person REALLY believe that a group this small (less than 2% of the total population of the Stae of California) contributed 75% of the Yes on 8 funds? Sounds like more scape-goating of an easy target to me.
Mormon voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At MOST the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin. In other words, Mormon 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. Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin. But it sure is a lot easier to target the Mormons than it is African-Americans, isn't it? I find this whole blame-the-Mormons movement disingenuous and cowardly.
mormonsfor8.com volunteers had successfully identified more than 50% of the large donors as members of the LDS Church. “And we know that we did not identify all of the Mormon donors,” Hansen relates. “You can see that in some places virtually all the money that came in came from Mormons. It’s a safe bet to say that Mormons contributed over half the money. It might be as high as 75%.”
Is seems reasonable what the mormons for 8 were saying and estimating. Were they being dishonest? If they are honest here, then it may be the Mormon movement that is disingenuous and cowardly, not the blame-the-Mormons movement.
YES! That's the astounding thing that a group so small gave so much in money and time and swayed so many Californians.
Who donated is a matter of record made public by the Sec of State. That they are mormons was identified by fellow mormons who combed through the Sec of State lists. Go to mormonsfor8.com to see the details.
What is interesting is that ANYBODY can identify ANYBODY else on the mormonsfor8.org donor list as Mormon, seemingly without any verification requirements. (Seems like we have seen this before...hmmm...)
Question: Why is nobody applying regular scientific and statistical standards of review to these claims?
Answer: Simply because it is so much more fun and easy to just cite a source without applying critical examination of the facts.
Notice that the "identified Mormon" names are NOT given on the spreadsheet? If the founders of mormonsfor8.org were confident in the reliability and veracity of their data, they would publish it. They know it is not accurate or scientifically generated, and to publish it would expose the group and the individual founders to some serious civil liability, wouldn't it? They're not dumb, just agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest.
Have you tried to identify anyone as LDS? If you haven't, how do you know that the website owners did not require some sort of backup other than one person's say-so?
Here's your chance to double-check the list and/or apply your scientific and statistical standards to review the ID'd donors:
(a) The full names of donors are available in a bunch of places, and a quick internet search would lead you to them.
(b) Now take the full names of the folks id'd as Mormon from one of the other places and ask them if they're LDS. If not, tell Mormonsfor8.com they got the ID's wrong and ask them to publish an apology for mis-identifying the donors.
(c) Using the names at mormonsfor8 who are identified as non-LDS, see if you can find any who actually are LDS and ask for a correction.
So...why don't you place the onus for scientific process on the publisher of the list, instead of the reader? The publisher should have the responsibility to authenticate his/her findings/claims. If mormonsfor8.org was so confident in their methodology, they wouldn't change the names of the donors identified as Mormon.
Per the article, mormonsfor8.org supposedly used congregational directories to identify members of the list as Mormon. Maybe that would be a good place for them to start with their authentication process. What's that? They haven't done it? Even this long after the election? Hmmm...maybe that's because they never had access to those records as they claimed. Again, lazy, sloppy "journalism".
This story gets weaker and weaker every day. As much as the haters don't want to admit it, this initiative passed because Californians value the traditional definition of marriage. Period.
If you don't believe mormonsfor8.org's numbers, you could ask the campaign managers themselves. It's not 75%, but, at 50%, it could still be called significant to the campaign. The Seattle Times reported on Nov. 18, 2008 that:
"Of the approximately $40 million raised by the Yes on 8 campaign, roughly half came from Mormons, estimated Jeff Flint, co-campaign manager. Almost all of that came from individual church members rather than the church itself."
Let me make this clear: I've never had a problem with the issue that individual members of the Mormon church were responsible for significant contributions in support of the amendment. That is their right. I also don't have a problem with their church asking them to donate and get out and work. Churches of all stripes, both for and against based on thier own theology, have that right as well.
The point I have been trying to make is with the numbers thrown around that are quoted in the media without question. Most media sources that I have seen keep trotting out data from mormonsfor8.org as some type of authoritative source, when in reality their claims have little basis in reality or accepted statisitcal and scientific process. Other than "trust us, we're rigorous in our processes", we have nothing to go on! The reality is that NOBODY knows how much any particular set of church members donated, including the Yes On 8 campaign managers, because it is simply not tracked. These are all guesses, at best.
I just find this whole "blame the Mormon church" campaign disingenuous. They had their act together. It's not ther fault that they're organized and passionate in their beliefs. It's not their fault that they put their money where their beliefs are. The bottom line is that if money really influenced the election as much as the No on 8 folks have convinced themselves, the measure should have carried easily because they raised MORE (from both in-state and out-of-state sources).
This was really about the values of Californians. The Mormons are just a convenient, easy-to-hate scapegoat. Pro-gay marriage folks just need to be more organized, and get better at fundraising next time around. And I'm sure there will be a next time!
Different churches have the right to be for or against. Now that they are politically active, we need to try to understand what they are doing, and why. They have put themselves in the game in a big way. Experience says they are a people who highly conform to the group, they take direction from the leaders, and work hard for their ends, which in this case is through politics. They like to project an aura of logical development of ideas, but it leads back to circular reasoning. In the past it has been driven by other prejudices. Conservative positions tend to be not open to seeing the damage they are causing. Certainly there is a long history of them being under attack by the rest of America, but you still have to question, was God ever in their response?
The Mormon church is not the only church that has caused us damage because of their conservative nature. Currently the big problem is conservative evangelical Christianity that put Republicans in power, and allowed or even encouraged wars, didn't object to the torture, and ultimately let the rich have their way with the rest of the nation and cause big economic difficulties because of their greed. So we need to keep watch on the mormons, but we also know the Christians are by far our biggest problem.
All very interesting but who are the contributors to the No side of this equation. What would it tell us about the interest groups, politicos, companies and other organizations pushing for gay marriage? Probably nothing important, but since they are on the "right" side of this issue the other side must be demonized and mocked before the latest social movement can move forward. All resistance must cease! NOW. The collective mind of the new world order has spoken. ALL MUST OBEY!!!!
Give me a break.
1. If you look closely at the claim, it is "estimated". Anybody can "estimate" anything. Deal with authenticated facts, please.
2. Consider the source: You're going to trust your data from someone with an agenda to discredit the Mormons? I'd like to know how this group supposedly "identified" the Mormon donors since church membership "directories" are not public, and not even available to Church members outside their own congregations. Given the hate and ugliness that some donors were subjected to when their names were publicized (both Mormon and non-Mormon), it is curious that this group did not publish the names of those they supposedly identified, and have provided NOTHING to back up their assertions.
3. Given the other blatant inaccuracies and outright falsehoods contained in this article, any thinking person would look at the "facts" presented with a very skeptical eye.
This site is populated by critical thinkers, and yet many of those same individuals swallow this stuff whole-hog without applying the same thinking, fact-checking, and skepticism routinely applied to their religious critiques. If spending was what swayed Prop 8, then it would have been voted down since the opposition OUTSPENT the supporters. This initiative passed because Californians wanted it. The reality that opponents of Prop 8 refuse to deal with is that African-Americans and Hispanics represent a voting block at least an order of magnitude greater than the Mormons, and both groups overwhelmingly supported the measure, but they sure can't go after those groups like they can the Mormons. It's just intellectually dishonest.
America seems to be leading the world in starting religions, we have Mormons, Christian Science, Scientology, 7th Day Adventists, and probably hundreds of Christian protestant denominations split off from the others. The stronger these belief structures become, the less the people in any of them authenticate anything. Also, the stronger these religions are in speaking out against their detractors, the more it seems like they might be hiding something.
How does one "authenticate" matters of faith? That's what faith is all about.
This particular debate really has nothing to do with Mormon theology or its detractors. It only deals with the unsubstantiated claims of mormonsfor8.org and their subsequent journalistic recitations. Thus questions regarding authentication via a scientific methodology are fair game.
On Religion Dispatches questioning religion is also fair game. We understand religions are often controlled environments where the authority structure decides what is fair game to question. This article is probably right when it states evidence that the mormon church got the young people to volunteer canvasing time, and to downplay their mormon connection. We know from past experience that Mormons monitor this site and sometimes participate, so we would have to expect them to also downplay the connection here.
Please don't twist my words. I never said anything about "questioning" religion. I think that's a completely valid and fascinating subject. What I asked is how does one "authenticate" matters of faith? That's what faith is all about. ANY faith. On the other hand, it is valid to ask for authentication of statistical data generated by mormonsfor8.org since it is being used by so many in the media and the No On 8 side.
This is also not about "downplaying the connection". I think it is pretty-well accepted (I certainly accept it) that the church members played a fairly significant role in the passage of 8.
My problem is with the blind citations of the media of the mormonsfor8.org statistics.
oversteer wrote:
On the other hand, it is valid to ask for authentication of statistical data generated by mormonsfor8.org since it is being used by so many in the media and the No On 8 side.
Okay, what did you have in mind in the way of authentication? Perhaps you could contact Wall Street Journal reporter, Mark Schoofs who did one of the earliest pieces on this story back in the summer of '08:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186063716658279.html#CX
He writes:
A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state's Web site. The site's founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised.
Maybe he could enlighten you as the proof and corroboration he and his editors at the WSJ required to run with the story.
OK Marc. Let's look at this closely:
A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state's Web site. This is stated as a fact. Just for the sake of argument, I'll concede that mormonsfor8.org did indeed track all the $1000 & up donors. Easy enough to do, and I have confirmed it myself.
The site's founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised. Again, he's just quoting her, but never questions the authenticity of her claims. NOBODY has provided that authenticity, nobody has provided their methodology of identifying the names or the controls in place to support the accuracy of the list. That is my point: The WSJ in this case quotes the source, but doesn't authenticate her claims.
I'm not. Questioning religion was my words, not yours.
The people I identified as mormon, I know.
How many?
I can think of about 10 off the top of my head.
Are you the inquisition? Or just afraid of the truth?
How about this: Do you deny that the church organized precinct walks and told the members to NOT look like mormons/missionaries and instructed them to NOT identify themselves as mormons?
10??? Wow, then the list MUST be valid.
The inquisition? That's such a typical response for folks who don't have any hard data to support their argument: just change the subject.
No I'm not the inquisition, and I'm certainly not afraid of the truth. In fact, that's what I specifically trying to get at here. I'm just asking some valid and fair questions about the reliability of the data published by mormonsfor8.org, and nobody seems to want to provide any solid answers.
I'll make you a deal Sue. Answer my question first (provide accepted practices in scientific methodology for their data-gathering), and then I'll answer your question.
I find it particularly fascinating that you have the balls to even mention the "hate and ugliness" that donors to either side endured. You, straight, Mormon, conservative, (affluent?), (white?), (educated?), (suburban?), (male?), (married?) and the list goes on, do not know ONE THING ABOUT HATE AND UGLINESS. And, THAT is what I find to be the most galling and disingenuous of this entire debate -- just another "see the list of adjectives above" guy trying to limit the rights of a group of citizens of which he is not even a part, all the while thinking he's doing it in the name of god!
This is at the very heart of the strife and turmoil around this topic -- all you supposed "followers of Christ" don't even really understand what he stood for. You're fake, shallow and empty, not to mention cultish. And, no, I can't back that up with quantifiable data -- just manifold empirical data, starting with you.
I'll post the clip later today at my YT channel.
to suescannon up top.
And good luck with your attempts to impugn and discredit, oversteer.
I think it is pretty obvious that mormonsfor8.org has already done a pretty good job of discrediting itself. All you have to do is look at the facts.
Relevance?
Relevance about who wrote the misleading 6 Consequences? No one claimed authorship at the time it was spreading like wildfire.
Wow. So...some overzealous individual published misleading (as intepreted by some) propaganda in the midst of a controversial and bare-knuckled initiative fight to sway voters to his side. Shocking. I'll bet that has NEVER happened in an election before.
And I'll also bet that the Anti-8 media blitz was as pure as the driven snow. Kind of like their mean-spirited, hateful treatment of individuals outed as Prop 8 supporters after the election. Or the hate crimes committed against Mormon churches in California.
My point on relevance is that this piece was not published by the Mormon Church, was it? (Sorry, I'm not familiar with it.)
The "overzealous individual" was the Prop 8 Grassroots Director, Gary Lawrence, whose company Lawrence Research was overseeing polling for ProtectMarriage.com. Oh, and he's LDS. And he wrote a book about how Americans view Mormons. Which came out just after the November 2008 election.
And the Mormon Church had the Six Consequences as bullet points on its preservingmarriage website until members like Thurston convinced them the consequences were spurious at best.
And how much was Lawrence Research paid for all of this?
It's been ages since I checked the expenditure reports, but at one point, this is what I'd figured Lawrence Research got paid: $528,877.35
OK. I can see that. So...he's Mormon, but not a representative of the Mormon Church, right? And...the Mormon Church disavowed the list once they found that it was "spurious at best"? I would think that would work in their favor in your eyes.
And, your point with how much this guy made as a pollster is...what? Is it that he shouldn't be writing books? Did the Mormon church give their endorsement to his book? I don't see the problem here.
Or is your point that pollsters shouldn't be making money in policital campaigns? Did the pollsters with the No On 8 organization not make money or try to spin things in the direction of their employers? This is just politics in America, guys.
Again, this is just an attempt to divert the attention away from the fact that Californians voted their values on Prop 8. If money REALLY swayed the election that much, then the Proposition would have carried easily because the No On 8 side raised more money both in and out of state.
I find it interesting that it is so hard to find the indentity of the owner of “mormonsfor8.com” anywhere on the web site. (It's there, but you have to dig deep.) Cedar City attorney Nadine Hansen, who professes “neutrality” toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on her deceptively-named web site, thinks nothing of the improper and possibly illegal use of church-owned directories for “outing” individual contributors to “Yes on 8” for their alleged religious affiliation as “Mormons.”
I agree with others that her numbers are not to be trusted. But the consequences of her “neutral” activity to some individuals, including boycotts, loss of employment, and other forms of discrimination, are well known.
One wonders at the fury that would result if some “neutral” party were to create a web site that encouraged people to “out” individual donors to “No on 8” for, some “incidental” characteristic, such as, say, their sexual orientation?
I also agree with others who have pointed out the hypocrisy of blaming Mormons for the passage of Proposition 8. Could it be because Mormons are one of the few remaining groups who are still safe to hate? I also note that the “follow the money” conspiracy theorists never mention the facts: advocates of same-sex marriage raised 17% more than advocates of traditional marriage and also raised 18% more out of state.
http://tinyurl.com/Prop8-funds
Tracy Hall Jr
Provo Canyon, Utah
So far, the lack of fury in response to your own lame attempt at "outing" a "No on 8" supporter pretty much answers your question, doesn't it? No more need to wonder, Tracy.
By the way, my name's Jason Echols, and incidentally, I'm straight, an RM, formerly an AP, Branch President, BYU student, yadda yadda ...
Can I be the first entry in your proposed web site? Please say yes. And please tell me you weren't just bluffing, because I've got a few hundred friends who'd also get a kick out of being listed as "No on 8" donors on your site. Cheers!
“Safe to hate,” what prompts this outrageous tag? When did opposing the misogyny and disdain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints show toward other homosexual people are women become hate speech. Hatred is not coming from opponents of Roman Catholic or Mormon bigotry, it comes from the Catholic and Mormon religious organizations. That is the problem.
“Safe to hate,” what prompts this outrageous tag? When did opposing the misogyny and disdain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints show toward homosexual people and women become hate speech. Hatred is not coming from opponents of Roman Catholic or Mormon bigotry; it comes from the Catholic and Mormon religious organizations.
I do not hate members of the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Catholic Church, I just do not accept the bigotry those organization voice.
I don't hate Mormons, just their bigoted church.
I don't hate Gays, just the Gay Agenda.
I am not bigoted, I just don't think they (Gays, Mormons, Catholics, Atheists) should be able to (teach my kids; live in my neighborhood; defend my country; share cubicle space; create family units with equal rights under the law).
Well said, Campaign Watcher. We finally agree on something!
I'm so glad that I'm no longer a member of that church.
They're so rich and have great organizational skills; yet they use it to tear people down instead of doing something useful.
Some here have expressed skepticism about our identification of Mormon donors on our website. In this day of the internet, we were able to be in contact with individuals from many places. In many cases, these were people who we already "knew" via Mormon online social networks. In other cases, people who we did not know contacted us.
It is always possible that we made a mistake here or there, but not one single person contacted us to tell us we had misidentified someone.
I spent hundreds of hours googling donor names to find Mormon connections, and found many names openly available on the internet in news articles, blogs, and the church's own website. I also did some "spot checking" when I got information from someone I didn't know, to see if I could confirm what I was being told. On one occasion, a post seemed a little "fishy," and in checking, I found that the identified individual was an Evangelical Christian, not a Mormon.
As for the reason we removed last names once we identified donors, the explanation is on the website, but in a nutshell, some Mormon donors complained because they didn't want their names listed. Because our goal was not to single out individuals, but rather to get an overall picture of the extent of Mormon involvement in Prop. 8 finances, we chose to list only a first name and last initial once the donors were identified as Mormon. We did not do that initially, but changed the listings in response to complaints from a few Mormon donors.
There were only a few complaints about listing names, and a number of Mormons wrote to us to make sure we listed them as Mormon. In fact, I had some very pleasant exchanges with a few of those who felt they had taken a principled stand and were most willing to "stand up and be counted."
Overall, however, it seemed to us that the institutional church wanted to keep a low profile, despite the fact that Mormons were the primary driving force behind support of Prop. 8.
So...this is the "trust us, we're rigorous" explanation. Still skeptical. Also still waiting for the "congregational directories" claim.
Also still waiting for the "congregational directories" claim.
Dude, I've read the entire thread and you're the only one here talking about "congregational directories" ...
Just sayin'.
It's in the body of the article, and nobody seems to be able to address my concern: Using church directories, Hansen was then able to identify “all but one or two” of the ERA donors as Mormon. All I'm trying to get at is the validation of the mormonsfor8.org data. They're just not backing up their assertions, so I'm just highly skeptical of their data. It's important because their claims seem to be the basis for a lot of media pieces on this subject.
The line you cite from the article refers to the ERA contest, which you apparently ignored when you claimed:
Per the article, mormonsfor8.org supposedly used congregational directories to identify members of the list as Mormon.
In any case, in the Mormon church, there's a convenient correlation between a member's financial ability to make sizable political donations and his prominence in the LDS community. If you're LDS and can afford to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign, your name is probably already familiar to thousands of fellow Mormons.
I am a son of the Utah pioneers, and grew up in central Salt Lake City. These weren't the values I was taught growing up.
It's one thing to want to keep a low profile to work with those who have historically persecuted you, such as the Catholics and Evangelicals that Latter-Day Saints have been trying to convert since the 1830s. It is quite another to target the LGBTQ community as they misrepresented Prop 8. Lying, misrepresenting the truth, not being fully honest in order to gain a political victory is not living out your faith. In fact, supporting marriage equality is the best chance to reclaim the legal right to live out the polygamy inherent in LDS theology.
As a Presbyterian Minister, I appeal to my LDS family and friends to apologize to their gay and lesbian members for the way they have portrayed them, be honest about their faith's view of polygamy, and work to protect the civil rights of every American - including their right to marry those whom they love.
We can expect that fervent religious devotees will defend and protect their religion, its leaders, their dictates and church actions out-of-hand more than any other alliance in their lives, for at the root of their mental conviction of absolute rightness is the primary belief that their God and their Church are essentially the same.
While there is really no hope of a great leap in the deconstruction of generations of indoctrinated individuals who refuse to reason for themselves we should continue to bring religious political manipulation into the public forum.
Interested parties would do well to follow the links in this article. The official Mormon newsroom site states:
“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.”
The last sentence is typical of the leaps in reason we witness from religious authority. Clearly, the birth of children is irrelevant to this issue but as with all religious arguments, the emotional buttons are squarely engaged. It is unlikely that children will be born to unions of the same sex and if anybody out there knows better, I’d appreciate an update on the birds and the bees.
Further, if marriages are indeed solely for the reproduction of our species, then all childless couples should be forced into annulment, ala Church ceremony, as a proper pronouncement of God’s displeasure.
Millions of traditional couples living within the bondage of loveless marriages generate lots of babies, while suffering a spiritual sterility that they pass on to their luckless children. They, and ensuing generations, suffer for the indoctrination that the Creator of Infinity beyond imagination has a pointed interest in puny human contracts. It is easily established that marriage is a relatively recent human construct with highly diverse cultural arrangements. In the Middle Ages, long after God was God, the Catholic Church dictated that marriage was to be a sacrament. Before that, couples came together and apart at will.
Religious people are among the most misinformed and ignorant of the real meaning of democracy. On the protectmarriage.com website, a link on the official Mormon Church newsroom website, it says:
“Whether Americans will be forced to forfeit the core of their democracy by allowing a small group of wealthy activists to void a constitutional amendment adopted by 7 million Californians.”
In our democratic republic, it was intended that the democratic process would be open to the use of persuasion, which is to say, by bringing people to a certain side, or against it, based on an argument. Arguments today have become tools for a manipulation of language that does not intend to communicate, but to influence. The above quote demonstrates an appalling ignorance of what this nation is really about.
Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Religious people in this nation, if they want freedom for themselves, had better come to understand these words and live by them. That's the real moral high ground and make no mistake, it’s the real core of this democracy.
Wow. So many inaccuracies and twisted logic, so little time to respond.
Further, if marriages are indeed solely for the reproduction of our species, then all childless couples should be forced into annulment, ala Church ceremony, as a proper pronouncement of God’s displeasure. The declaration on the family doesn't say or even imply anything close to that. Holy cow.
“Whether Americans will be forced to forfeit the core of their democracy by allowing a small group of wealthy activists to void a constitutional amendment adopted by 7 million Californians.” Naomi claims that this statement "demonstrates an appalling ingnorance of what this nation is really about". On the contrary, it shows a perfect understanding of what this country is really about: the rule of law and democracy.
Twisted arguments like these and the Thomas Jefferson quote are often trotted out when things don't go the way of the losing side as justification for overturning the will of the people. Folks like Naomi are justifiably passionate about the democratic process, but seem to want to limit the participation of "misinformed and ignorant" people of faith. Fortunately, the "enlightened" will lead the way and overturn the voice of the people in the name of the "oppressed".
Now that you mention it, one could say my comment contained one inaccuracy. For space and character limitation, I did not define this nation as a Democratic Republic but instead I used the common term of "democracy," as you did in your response. Since you use "the rule of law and democracy" as a phrase which is bandied about all over the place because it sounds good, but fails to ground itself within the specific issues of the discussion, it shows a need for clarification.
In a democracy, the majority rules. In a Democratic Republic, as Jefferson said (sorry for "trotting" him out once again)the majority governs, but with equal rights extended to the minority and equal protection under the law. There is nothing difficult to understand, here.
The Founders, wise to the ways of human nature, recognized that minorities are powerless under conditions of majority domination. Indeed pure democracy leads to conditions of mob rule, and they established that the rule of law is protection of the minority from the abuses of majority domination.
That you do not understand this yet is not the end of the world, but an invitation for you to open your mind to the principles of compassion and equality the installation of this democratic republic intended to foster among its people.
Saying the declaration on family doesn't "say...anything close to that" is of course accurate, you are right, it doesn't. Of course, it does most certainly imply that marriage is for the production of children and it certainly does follow, therefore, that the question be posed as to the validity of marriage without children. A cross-examination of these absolute assertions that declare an absolute law for all human beings is what every thinking American should do when it comes to an influence over the collective through legislative actions.
You are most incorrect when you infer that "folks like" me want to limit the participation of anyone in the democratic process. Quite the contrary.
Religious institutions (despite the immensely wealthy Mormon Church being a corporation and therefore by law an "entity") are not Constitutionally entitled to conduct themselves as a political operative. Because corporate/religious interests have injected themselves so thoroughly in our government, the "will of the people" is being trampled in this nation on a daily basis. The "rule of law" has become "pay to play." Money buys influence, it is used to manipulate public opinion often by scare tactics and is used to divide people on the basis of philosophy, i.e. an interpretation of God's will. In this last decade, religious followers have been used by the GOP and others to advance political agendas which are not remotely familiar to the founding principles of this nation.
As an author and researcher on the subject of politics and religion, on the real meaning of freedom and the preservation of this Constitutional democratic republic and as an advocate of what Jefferson called "brotherly affection" (the only thing religion should be advocating)I make no apology for the strong stand against the contemporary hypocrisy that is infiltrating the American mind, fueled by religious bigotry.
While religions can claim marriage is ordained of God, the fact remains that it is a legal arrangement of human government. War in the name of God, persecution in the name of God, intolerance in the name of God, politics in the name of God...these are the greatest dangers of our day from Mormons to Muslims to Fundamentalist Protestants to any other "ism" that by its nature only produces schisms in the underlying reality of human brotherhood.
It is my hope that we can grow toward spiritual maturity, to be self-governing because we are no longer political puppets and religious sheep, encouraging love and not condemning those whose love is not like The Donna Reed Show.
Amen, the passion in your statement is terrific. Thank you.
Those critical of the yes-on-8 donor information supplied by mormonsfor8.com should take a look at the disinformation provided by the yes-on-8 campaign. Compared to the hate-with-a-smile propaganda disseminated in churches, mailings and airways by the so-called coalition, the mormonsfor8.com methodologies look more sound than the most rigorous of peer-reviewed research journals.
Defenders of the Mormon involvement in the yes-on-8 campaign complain of persecution yet their examples are miniscule compared to the violence and discrimination laid upon Gay and Lesbian people and their families by Mormon faithful and those they influence.
Here in Arizona, Mormons are approximately 10% of the population yet they hold approximately 1/3 of the seats in our legislature. It appears to me that this is an overly powerful organization that is more interested in making themselves feel good by systematically oppressing others than they are in living the values they profess.
Defenders of the Mormon involvement in the yes-on-8 campaign complain of persecution yet their examples are miniscule compared to the violence and discrimination laid upon Gay and Lesbian people and their families by Mormon faithful and those they influence. Please cite one verified "act of violence" on any Gay or Lesbian or their families by Mormon faithful.
How about all our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who could only find relief in killing themselves because of the pain they felt having grown up in a church they loved that over and over again told them that they were abominations?
Wow, Sue. That's a quite a stretch.
I asked you to cite specifics where the Mormon faithful committed acts of violence. So please cite a reference to back up your generalities. (BTW, I'm not aware of instances where the Church told gays that "they are abominations". My guess is that the Church probably said the act was an abomination.)
Perhaps you've heard of Matthew Shepard? One of the two young men convicted of Matthew Shepard's beating death was a young Mormon Priesthood holder.
Or perhaps you'd be interested in reading stories from Gay Mormon men themselves. Of course, your definition of "act of violence" may differ from theirs....
Of course I am quite aware of the Matthew Shepard incident. I think that "Mormon faithful" everywhere were saddened and repulsed by it.
I would hardly call his murderers "Mormon faithful" though. Since they were hanging out in a bar that night drinking heavily, making plans to rob a gay man, and then brutally followed through, I seriously doubt they were planning teaching a Sunday School class the next day.
I also perused your link about ex-Mormon gay men. I was particularly saddened to read about the suicides of some of these men, and of those that were abused by men in positions of authority. From what I know of the Mormon church, there is no place for these types, and the church deals with them harshly based upon the circumstances.
I have a friend who is a Stake President, and we have discussed this several times. He has indicated to me that because of confidentiality issues, and many times to protect the victims, most people don't know or understand the entire story regarding how these individuals are dealt with. I'm sure there are plenty of anecdotal stories out there about someone who had this or that happen to them, and the perpetrator was never fully punished, but I believe my friend when he says the theology of the church has no tolerance for those who abuse children.
In High School I had a very close friend who was a Mormon, but I always suspected he was gay. After meeting up with him some years later, he indicated that he had left the Mormon church because he couldn't reconcile his orientation with the church's positions, and he seemed at peace with his decision and actually very happy.
It was interesting that in one of the articles about the gay Mormon man who took his own lfe, he was counseled by his Bishop that if it came down to choosing between the church and life, to choose life. My suspicion is that when someone gets to the point of taking their own life, there is something deeper and much more complex going on . I'm not a psycholigist, but my guess is that not being able to reconcile one's orientation and one's faith is just one element of the journey that brings them to that terrible decision. However, I still think it is a stretch to call this an act of violence by the "Mormon faithful".
oversteer,
Based on some of your comments above, I take it that you're not LDS. Maybe you are, but I'm guessing not considering some of the phrasing in your comment.
Anyway, regarding your main concern here, the "authentication / verification" issue at the Mormonsfor8.com website; let me say, with each additional post you're making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. I'd like to help you stop making a fool of yourself.
Nadine has provided a basic overview of how Mormon identifications were made at the website. If you are not Mormon yourself, I'm not sure you can fully appreciate what was contained in her post. You belittled and waved away her information as just a "trust us, we're rigorous" statement. Okay, don't trust that information --- trust yourself. Be rigorous yourself. Do what I did. Move on over to Mormonsfor8.com, download the spreadsheet, pick one of the many. many, many names that have yet to be identified and give it a try. I can assure you, there are LOTS of Mormons still unidentified. If you're not Mormon, it will be difficult because you won't know what to look for. If you are Mormon, your job will be easier. It took me 5 minutes, --- just 5 minutes--- to positively identify one of the names there as Mormon. There it sits, the full name, an LDS donor, not yet credited and adding to the conservative 50% estimate already up. All you need is a modicum of intelligence and a little googling know-how. Ironically, this particular Mormon donor was a statistics major in college. Statistics, the thing you keep harping on.
In closing, let me make this offer. If you're actually interested in the truth, and actually interested in seeing what an identification looks likes, provide an email address and I'll send it to you. Then you can make up your own mind.
Marc, Marc, Marc...the only fool here is the one who thinks Nadine's defense of her methodology (trust us, we're rigorous) is acceptable. In my career I have never been able to get away with "a basic overview". Are you kidding me? You sound educated, Marc. Were you able to provide a "basic overview" for any original hypothesis in college?
I HAVE looked over her list, and though I didn't recognize any names and you did, that's not the point. (I guess I am not as well acquainted with Mormons as you are.) For the sake of clarity, though, I willingly concede that many of the names indeed ARE Mormon. Not the point. And yes, I am capable of googling, too, thank you. Again, not the point.
The point is that ANYBODY can do what you did, and "contribute" to the "outing" of these donors as Mormons. But where's the verification documentation? If Nadine is so sure of the accuracy of her list, why hasn't she also at least published the names of the "identifiers"?
Are you really so naive to think that a group or individual couldn't game the system by "contributing" names to make the No On 8's Mormon involvement theory stronger? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't (as a natural skeptic, I'll lean towards the "did" argument). The point is they CAN, which corrupts the process and the integrity of the list, and thus, the claims by mormonsfor8.org.
It is also so easy for Nadine to make claims like "we scannned websites", or "we used church directories", but I see nowhere on her website where she produces or cites any of these sources specifically. Like I said, it's a lot of blah, blah, blah, with no substance that can be verified.
You should re-read Boyd K Packer's phamplet "For Young Men Only" where he openly advocates beating young gay men.
Does he really say that? Oi vey! Do you have the quote?
Actually, I believe he's talking about "To The One" which was originally given as an address to the Twelve Stake Fireside at Brigham Young University on March 5, 1978
Here is a link, but I see the scans of the pamphlet are not showing properly:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/tto.shtml
The jist of the Packer comment was this:
A young missionary came to him (or possibly a mission president) and relayed, in anguish, how he'd just "decked" his missionary companion. Once the reason for the "decking" was revealed --- a reported advance by the missionary companion, Packer assured the young man that, well, it wasn't that bad. "Somebody had to do it" and it certainly wouldn't do for a mission president (or Packer, I don't remember) to be the one delivering the punch.
Anyway, if the link is ever back up and running, you can try it then, or research more for "To The One".
Ooops,
I was mistaken, it was "To Young Men Only".
Here's the quote and a link:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
"There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
"But I floored him," he said.
After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."
The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the state from meddling in ecclesiastical matters, and prohibits the church from meddling in affairs of state. There is a string of case law on point (e.g., Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (1973), Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990), City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)). What the plaintiffs have demonstrated is that the Mormons have tried to distance themselves from the fact that they used their church as a mace with which to craft law and public policy, in blatant violation of the First Amendment.
It is now clear to US District Judge Vaughn Walker (who is trying the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger) that the Mormons (LDS) raised more than $19 million in their attempt to amend the California state constitution to eliminate gay marriage in that state, and that they overstepped their bounds as a church and instead became a legislative power, spattering the media with grossly misleading and ugly commercials in an attempt to scare the citizens of California into believing that the recognition of gay marriage would bring about the collapse of civilization.
The US Supreme Court has held, repeatedly, that a bare desire to inflict harm on a politically unpopular minority may never constitute a legitimate state interest for the purposes of equal protection analysis (see United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)). This same court struck down all state sodomy statutes in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), holding that these statutes violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is sickening to contemplate the fact that this powerful church used its funds to persecute gay Californians -- particularly in view of the other uses to which the $19 million that they raised and spent on their campaign to promote Proposition 8 could have been put. This church used its influence to codify legislative gay-bashing, and its members should hang their heads in collective shame.
Members of this church complain about being targeted for violence by gay rights activists. Their claims pale in comparison with the gay-bashing that they have implicitly endorsed and encouraged in their sermons comparing homosexuality to murder.
It's obviously not so pleasant for them when the boot is on the other foot, is it?
What is even more disgusting is that the members of this church were in turn persecuted for their beliefs about polygamy. Having been persecuted for this tenet of their faith, they now see fit to persecute gay persons who wish to marry. A more revolting example of hypocrisy is hard to come by.
It is my sincere hope that the admission of this evidence into the record will result in this church being seen for what it is -- a financial giant that has spent millions on an effort to snatch happiness away from countless gay couples in the State of California.
PHILIP CHANDLER
"This church used its influence to codify legislative gay-bashing, and its members should hang their heads in collective shame."
I do.
Many gay people I know are actually quite spiritual and kind individuals. I can't help feeling that the church is alienating those it should be reaching out to. It seems clear to me that in time (30,40 years) gay people will be fully accepted into even religious scoeity and the church will once again hang its head in shame, at how it treated an oppressed and vunerable group with distane.
GC Appearance
I simply do not understand what business a religious group has promoting hate and discrimination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints simply disgraces itself. I have no interest in such a group.
What a sorry disgrace is that religious group and anyone who supports its disdain for other human beings.
I'm waiting for a vaccine for hooey.
By the time all the religious zealots get through "working their wonders", every last person in the country will be a die-hard atheist.
Is that a warning or a wish?
sounds almost as inevitability , Jim :) If right wing radical "chirstians" continue business as usual... I have seen many people who attribute their hard core atheistic views to their strict religious upbringing and /or churches they attended.
Nobody can create an atheist quicker then a good ol religilous hypocrite.
Hard core Christians are creating hard core atheists, but they are also making hard core Christians more hard core. This deepens the divide. When the split becomes too deep, they will have to give up every conservative value, and then they will no longer exist, and we can return to how things were 50 years ago before Christianity linked up with conservative politics. It will be like when communist USSR fell. The day after, there were no more communists, so nobdy to blame, and nobody cared any more.
Churches and Christians have been around for thousands of years and will continue on after all the posers have moved on to another social cause. When Churches are on the side of progressive causes, Civil Rights, ERA, fighting poverty and on and on they are embraced and encouraged. When in opposition to some new fad or something that just goes against their grain -- suddenly they are hard-core, inflexible, intolerant, mean spirited and on and on. Political movements will use anyone or any institution to get their way then turn on them if it is expedient. Religion should remember their Bible. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers and stay out of the ongoing political parade. Tomorrow there will be another parade with another overly emotional political cause that must be addressed NOW or the world will end. Religion does not only link up with conservative causes --but then again you knew that.
Certainly the humanistic side of Christianity can be as good as any other humanism, but they might have reached a tipping point when they put Bush in power. The biggest question about Christianity is their end times rapture belief encouraging war and making Christians more accepting of things like torture. I think you have to wonder about the basic point of Christianity when the ones with the strongest belief in the name of Jesus and the most faith are also the ones who are most wrong about evolution and other science issues and the ones who have sold out the deepest to the party of the rich. The more rational Christians seem to sometimes have some doubt, is the whole point of life that God will let those with the proper belief structure into heaven, and send those who don't believe to hell? Christianity has an impressive two thousand year run, but I don't think you should be so sure about the next thousand. The survival of humanity might depend on growing beyond this stage. Remember, Jesus was a man, and he was not a Christian, and the great tragedy of his life was it got turned into a religion.
I'll be serving up lots of mixed metaphors in the grafs that follow, but pls bear with me ... ;-)
My sense is that, at least in broad terms, the public role of both the LDS leadership and the Mormon rank-and-file has now been fairly well analyzed and chronicled re the 'Yes on 8' campaign.
What remains to be painted is the picture of how and why a certain fraction/faction of the LDS leadership/membership managed to gain ascendancy inside both the Mormon church and the 'Yes on 8' campaign.
If we're to seriously document the Mormon 'Yes on 8' campaign, writing the next chapter will require wielding a finer brush than the one that's been applied to date.
In other words, I remain somewhat leery of any broad brush that paints either the "LDS leadership" or the "Mormon rank-and-file" or some "fuzzy combination of the two" as the prime culprits in this drama.
As with any faction, the players have names. I suspect that some of the Mormon names include Bart Marcois, David Parker, Lowell Brown, Sonja Eddings Brown, Gary Lawrence, Glen Greener, Russell M. Nelson, Paul Mero, and yes, Mitt Romney.
And speaking of that last name, as a next step, I'd suggest that those of us who 'give a hoot' ought to spend the next few months busying ourselves with disambiguating the Romney campaign of 2008 from the LDS Prop 8 campaign of that same year.
As far as I can tell, those two campaigns eventually became one and the same. It was simply the LGBT community's rotten luck that as soon as Mitt was out of the running in the GOP primary, suddenly a core of Romney supporters had extra time to devote to passing Prop 8.
If James Bopp and the Wirthlins hadn't been in the mix, I'd be more hesitant to put this out there, but since they were, I seriously suspect that Prop 8 was just as much a GOP thing as it ever was an LDS thing.
Why is it that they blame the Mormons, saying that all that money provided so much propaganda that people didn't get the truth, etc., when those opposed to prop 8 made $3.5million MORE than those FOR prop 8? Why couldn't they afford their own propaganda, to offset what many think they are seeing.
I don't know how I would have voted had I still been in California. But, I do know that, if those opposed to 8 are half as bad as they are being portrayed, as sore losers, they are losing my sympathy vote.
Timing and organization are almost as important in winning elections as money is, and with the Mormons on their side, the Protect Marriage coalition was able to capitalize on the inherent strengths of the church's organization.
For instance - The letter was read the last Sunday in June.
By the end of July, there was an LDS ZIP Code Supervisor in charge of coordinating volunteer efforts within every ZIP Code in the state, and there were LDS regional coordinators, each overseeing several ZIP Codes.
On August 13th, there were 15,000 volunteers working for those LDS ZIP Code Supervisors walking around getting the Yes on 8 message out. The next weekend there were 25,000 volunteers.
Now, money-wise and poll-wise, the marriage equality folks were ahead early on (and coasting on their lead, unaware of the organizational and leadership skills, let alone the fundraising power, poised to come to the fore) but the lead shifted after the Mormons got involved in volunteering and fundraising. The No on 8 folks weren't prepared and didn't recognize the problem until they were so far behind that people's fears had already been raised.
Then when money got tight, local Mormon leaders were able to identify potential large donors and hook those donors up with high-level ecclesiastical leaders who urged the local members to give more and young, freshly returned missionaries were asked to donate 4 hours/week to getting the campaign message out any way they could. Blogs exploded with posts that started with variations of, "I never get involved with politics here, but my church leaders say this is important."
When your ecclesiastical leader holds your salvation in his hand, it's kind of hard to tell him, "no" when he asks you to Sacrifice for The Cause. Sure, some folks can resist that kind of pressure, but there's a huge potential for abuse.
Members of the LDS church barely make a mark in California's population, let alone polls, but there are many places one can influence an election, not just at the ballot box.
And you can bet that in the next earthquake, the same folks who were mobilized quickly to fight same-sex marriage will be mobilized quickly to repair the damage and help the wounded. They're good at recruiting volunteers and following instructions/protocol and they're hard workers.
Members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and their leaders as well as Catholic bishops have a right to their perspective in their denominations. The problem is that they work to force their religious ideologies on other people. Why do they have tax exceptions when they force their agendas on the rest of us?
Good point, but they are not forcing their agenda as much as influencing people. Oversteer seems to be trying to influence the discussion by steering things to one tightly controlled question. Is this damage control? It brings up two other questions.
Is he contributing money to the mormon church?
Are they paying him?
I think these are valid questions to ask of a political organization.
No, they demand that I live according to the rules of their religious ideology. I find that ideology repellant but they are free not to marry homosexuals. They are free to do as they please. What gives the Catholic bishops and the Mormons the right to tell the rest of us how to live? By what right do they demand we conform to their rules?
I am not going to marry a man, but that does not mean that I have the right to stop another man from doing just that even if I find that behavior vile. That is my problem, not that of the gay man who seeks a gay spouse.
Mormon and Catholic bishop opinion is just their opinion. They want to make their opinion law. That is where they are over-the-line.
These people are just bullies.
Part of the problem is this absurd fantasy of “natural law”. Catholic natural law is built on a view of reality that ceased to exist about five hundred years ago. They babble on about something that exists only within their obscure theological universe.
"What gives the Catholic bishops and the Mormons the right to tell the rest of us how to live?"
They don't need the right because people just naturally follow what they say. That is the magic of religion.
Well, they are full of themselves. They are bullies. The way that the Catholic Church acted about its sex scandals discredited those folks for a long time. They have no business telling me how to live.
And Mormon theology is just nonsense—utter nonsense.
Sometimes nonsense can make for good religion. Religons are judged like any other animal, can they grow and reproduce and pass their memes on to the next generation? If they can outcompete the other religions, then they will have a higher market share of the next generation.
Huh?
Oversteer seems to be trying to influence the discussion by steering things to one tightly controlled question. Is this damage control? It brings up two other questions.
Is he contributing money to the mormon church?
Are they paying him?
An excellent observation (and two really good questions.) I think you're on to something with respect to oversteer's purpose here. As near as I can tell, he/she concedes the substance of the Mormonsfor8.com claims, namely that LDS donors and volunteers disproportionally contributed to prop 8, but wants to bluster about, fixate on and divert to the narrow question of authentication. And speaking of the website, though oversteer claims to have visited it, he/she repeatedly misidentifies it as Mormonsfor8.ORG. Of course, the correct designation is Mormonsfor8.COM.
OK, one last comment. This thread is starting to bore me, but this last post deserves a response. (This is going to take some time, so be patient. It's the last time you get the pleasure of hearing from me!)
In the interest of disclosure:
First, no, the Mormon Church does not pay me. (I think the Mormons on this site will back me up on how ridiculous that assertion is. My guess is that the Mormon Church isn't really concerned with what people on this site think.)
Second, yes, I have donated to the Mormon church in the past, often for specific disaster relief events (tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunami relief, etc.). I have been impressed with the way these people and their church respond to disasters. Back in the late 90's(?) when the tornadoes ripped through Oklahoma, I watched as they mobilized their people to go up there and help out with time and money. It was interesting to read a quote from an Oklahoma official who said how grateful they were for the help of two churches: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Mormons. It seems like the Mormon church is always one of the first to any disaster, and I'm guessing their total humanitarian contributions run in the billions of dollars. I trust that they know how to manage the donations they recieve, and that I am getting the biggest bang for my donation buck.
A little background: I grew up in California, had some Mormon friends (went to a lot of dances and played some basketball), and now live in Texas where I casually watched the whole Prop 8 battle from afar with some amusement (mostly because of the hysterics on both sides). Whereever I go, I seem to keep surrounding myself with Mormons. I find them to be caring, honest, decent and generous with their money and time. I don't find them to be the sheep that many of the posts on this site seem to imply. In the area where I currently live, I know several fairly well-off Mormons (BTW, didn't see any of their names on Nadine's list), and I have found them to be some of the most intelligent individuals that I have ever met. My experience is that they think for themselves, and are able to intelligently analyze their theology, even if they don't agree with every Church tenet. I have even been to their meetings, and I never heard anybody tell anybody else what to believe. Sorry, but I just like associating with people who have those qualities, and I get annoyed when I see people attack them. There, now you know where I am coming from.
I originally stumbled over this site by accident and read the original article. As an engineer, I am all about math and process. When I read the statement "Mormons Account for 75% of Donations" in bold in the original article, I thought, "Wait...what? How could that be possible?" When I was growing up in California, there weren't very many Mormons, and I couldn't imagine that that had changed much. It seemed impossible to me that a group so small could raise so much money.
That's when I first went to mormonsfor8.com. (you're right Marc, I misidentified it...that must mean everything else I say is inaccurate, right? I'm sure I have some typos, too, so you can disregard all my posts.) Upon looking through the spreadsheets and reading the substance of what the site was claiming, I realized that the list was open to tampering. In the professional papers that I have published and reviewed, in all my undergrad and post-grad work, the integrity of the underlying data is always the basis for the hypothesis. If the data is corrupted, or is even open to manipulation, it undermines the integrity of any claims that are made. That's why the scientific process is followed so rigorously. (Continued below)
Mormonsfor8.com can frankly gather information using any methodolgy they want. However, when the data they publish is held up as accurate and is quoted in the media, it should be subject to scrutiny, and nobody here seems willing to question it. This is surprising given the many thoughtful responses I have seen so far (some...not so thoughtful). I have not heard a single solid defense of their methodology or any employment of accepted control practices. All I get in answer to my (frankly valid) questions is the "trust us, we're rigorous" and a "basic overview".
Judging by the comments on this board, I'm assuming that most participants are probably well-educated. In their professional lives, I can't imagine that they could get by with such unreliable data, and yet they seem to accept it whole-hog in this important debate. By any standard, the mormonsfor8.com data is highly corruptible, and therefore of dubious integrity at best.
I guess the other thing that annoys me is the "Blame-the-Mormon Church" game. Yes, it has been well documented, and I fully agree, that the Mormons played a significant role in the passage of Prop 8. But at the end of the day, this measure was passed because the people of California voted their values. The Obama election brought out record numbers of African-Americans to the polls and they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8. Same for Latinos. To say that they were scared into voting for Prop 8 implies that these groups did not have the ability to think for themselves or to establish their own values. It's just insulting, especially when the No On 8 side raised more money.
It's not the Mormons' fault that they're organized, or passionate about their beliefs. They have the right, like everyone else, to the process, and they exercised that right. The Church also exercised its rights, and stayed well within the law. (Do your research. The IRS code for non-profits does not allow them to support any candidate, but any non-profit CAN support any issue, even if it divides or defines candidates.)
Next time around (and I think we can all agree there will be a "next time"), maybe the No on 8 group will be smarter and more organized, but I doubt that will sway the voters of California.
One last point: At the end of the day, the Mormon Church's involvement in the Prop 8 movement is not even really relevant. The case currently being argued in the US District Court, which will inevitably end up at the US Supreme Court no matter what is decided by the lower court, is going to be determined by the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, not by whether any church was involved in the process of an ballot measure.
This has been fun, but I need to move on to other tasks. Let the oversteer bashing begin!
Next time around (and I think we can all agree there will be a "next time"), maybe the No on 8 group will be smarter and more organized, but I doubt that will sway the voters of California.
I want to thank you for the effort expended in these last two posts. There is much I could say but I'll leave it at this:
Time will tell. History moves forward in a hearse.
Thanks for the explanation. We normally fight among ourselves and are critical of everything that is brought up, but we can't really fault you for anything. We are on a quest to dispatch all the various religions, and see what is left after we are done. I accept you are not a mormon, but do you have any religion you could recommend to us? Or are you kind of agnostic?
I don't mean to be anti-Mormon. Their religion does not make much sense to me, but the people are usually terrific to know.
I wish that they would not attack gay folks. Otherwise, live and let live.
The article is excellent.
Attack, who is being attacked. Marriage in its present form has been around for thousands of years. Suddenly gays achieve some power and they want social mores and laws changed immediately. Well it takes time to turn the Titanic (society & tradition) around. My guess is that in less then 25 years people will be wondering what all the fuss was about. The gays are on the attack and the others are playing defense. A defense that they will probably lose. People resisted women voting, ending of slavery, social security and much else. Change is a bitch but resistance is as natural as breathing so don't have a stroke because things are not moving fast enough. Rights don't exist in a vacuum but become rights when most people recognize them as rights and are willing to enforce them and defend them against abridgment. Would anyone in their right mind try to deny a woman the right to vote today? People back then were not all crazy but adapting to changing times.
It's not the Mormons' fault that they're organized, or passionate about their beliefs. It is their fault that they want the state to endorse and substain their weird notions about human sexuality.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.