Wall Street Journal (Opinion Section) Slams "8: The Mormon Proposition"

[smac97]

Cool:

In 1857, explaining his decision to send the army to put down a "rebellion" in Utah, President James Buchanan complained that Brigham Young's fanatical followers "obey his commands as if these were direct revelations from heaven." One hundred and fifty years later, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints again stands accused of fanaticism, in this instance by a documentary that seeks to indict the church for its recent foray into the politics of marriage.

"8: The Mormon Proposition" chronicles the role the church played in enshrining a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California by supporting the 2008 passage of Proposition 8. As a spotlight on the suffering of same-sex couples and individuals who are rejected by family and church leaders, the film succeeds. Its critique of the church's recent political activism, however, is as ham-fisted as many of the mid-19th century allegations against the church.

"Ham-fisted." Man, that's a rather common descriptor for anti-mormon efforts (witness how often it was used to describe September Dawn a few years back).

The film's basic narrative also is compelling. It describes how, with Proposition 8 lagging in the polls, the church's hierarchy in Utah determined that other religious conservatives were not pulling their weight. Thus, the church ordered its members to become a "mighty army," as one top leader put it in a video broadcast obtained by the filmmakers.

In response, Mormons in California and elsewhere abundantly gave their money and time in a furious effort to get the ballot measure over the top. The night Barack Obama carried California in a landslide, Proposition 8 eked out a narrow victory. A church infamous for its defense of polygamy in the late 19th century had become the backbone of the 21st century campaign against gay marriage.

Well, no. The Church is defending marriage against those who seek to radically redefine - and eventually undermind and destroy - it.

Now here's where the article gets going:

"The Mormon Proposition's" broader conclusions about Mormons and their church are less convincing. The film is full of articulate and photogenic supporters of marriage equality. When presenting Mormon opponents of same-sex marriage, the filmmakers showcase a curmudgeonly Utah state legislator who compares gay Americans to Muslim terrorists. Given the church's high levels of education and affluence, one surmises that they could have found more eloquent and less offensive Mormons to articulate their belief in traditional marriage.

Yep.

Also, much as President Buchanan did in 1857, "The Mormon Proposition" portrays church members as blindly following the commands of their divinely appointed leaders. The film alleges that church leaders threatened to disfellowship members reluctant to contribute to Proposition 8, and that fanatical followers discarded their life savings in order to take away rights from gay people.

I hadn't heard about this allegation (the threat of disfellowshipment).

Mormons do place an extraordinary emphasis on obedience to their leaders, including viewing their president as God's ordained prophet on earth. That ethic of obedience does not, however, make Mormon leaders cruel dictators or ordinary members blind automatons. While Mormons in California and elsewhere heeded their leaders' call, most probably did so not out of fear or blind obedience but because they also believed in the cause.

"But because they also believed in the cause." Would that our adversaries could understand that.

The film also asserts that the church should lose its tax-exempt status because of its support for Proposition 8.

Wow! It's a good thing the proponents of SSM are not out to destroy those with which they disagree. Or something...

The church recently paid a small fine for failing to report all of its non-monetary contributions in a timely manner. There is no evidence that the church violated any other laws. For better or worse, current jurisprudence allows tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in this sort of political activism.

"For better or worse?"

Ultimately, where the film really misses the mark is in its portrayal of Mormons

[Mark Beesley]

I hadn't heard about this allegation (the threat of disfellowshipment).

I was never threatened with any type of disciplinary action when I politely declined a personal invitation to contribute and become active in the support of the proposition.

Does anyone know of anyone who was directly threatened with being disfellowshipped?

Does the film actually make that claim?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ultimately, where the film really misses the mark is in its portrayal of Mormons

[mfbukowski]

I was never threatened with any type of disciplinary action when I politely declined a personal invitation to contribute and become active in the support of the proposition.

Does anyone know of anyone who was directly threatened with being disfellowshipped?

Does the film actually make that claim?

That allegation (that people were threatened with being disfellowshipped) is a direct lie. We bent over backwards to make sure that those who did not want to contribute time or money were not in the least marginalized.

I know this from my own experience and from directives which came down the line of authority. We were to make every effort to make sure they followed their consciences and did what they felt was right.

I don't have time to watch this thread really, or fully read it even, but I just wanted to say that.

One of the main reasons Prop 8 passed was the "Black vote". It was totally ironic watching the election returns on a region by region basis- South Central LA went overwhelmingly for Obama AND in favor of prop 8.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I can only wish for that type of power.

[the narrator]

That allegation (that people were threatened with being disfellowshipped) is a direct lie. We bent over backwards to make sure that those who did not want to contribute time or money were not in the least marginalized.

I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if the allegation is made. However, I know for a fact that some lost their callings and/or temple recommends for publicly opposing Prop. 8. I should note, however, that this was different from simply not supporting it. I doubt anyone was "punished" in anyway for simply not supporting it--though for several, (passive) pressure was used when asking for support and specific dollar amounts. (As a Mormon, I consider a request from a Bishop or Stake Leader to consist of at least passive pressure due to the nature of their callings and the implicit--and explicit--teachings to support our Church leaders).

It should also be noted that these actions (removal from callings and TR) seemed to have been completely the actions of local leaders and most likely would have been stopped by leaders in Salt Lake if their advice had been sought.

My Stake President boasted that our stake had reached the $ quota given to them from general (area) authorities. This was partly achieved by asking individual members to donate specific dollar amounts based on their income. As far as I am aware, no members who simply turned down the request were "punished" in any way.

I know this from my own experience and from directives which came down the line of authority. We were to make every effort to make sure they followed their consciences and did what they felt was right.

I think one thing that has become clear is that due to Salt Lake's hands-off mentality (besides the June 17 FP letter and the state broadcast--which left a few of my friends in tears), local leaders often acted on that which they thought Salt Lake wanted, but which might have been advised against if Salt Lake had been more directly involved.

One of the main reasons Prop 8 passed was the "Black vote". It was totally ironic watching the election returns on a region by region basis- South Central LA went overwhelmingly for Obama AND in favor of prop 8.

While the black christian vote certainly was the deciding factor at the booth, it is largely unquestioned that the Mormon dollars and man-hours played a powerful role in passing Prop 8.

An interesting inconsistency exists in that many Mormosn seem to accept and point to praises from Catholics and Evangelicals for their role in passing Prop 8 while at the same time disdaining and denying criticisms from opposers for their role in passing Prop 8.

[Jaybear]

Why are you Mormons so reluctant to take credit for the victory?

But for the substantial money and manpower the Mormons contributed to Prop 8, it may very well have been defeated.

To say otherwise, is an insult to those who donated significant time and money to the cause.

[frankenstein]

Cool:

Nice.

-Smac

smac, if you could attempt to be objective on the issue, this thread would be interesting.

The film's basic narrative also is compelling. It describes how, with Proposition 8 lagging in the polls, the church's hierarchy in Utah determined that other religious conservatives were not pulling their weight. Thus, the church ordered its members to become a "mighty army," as one top leader put it in a video broadcast obtained by the filmmakers. In response, Mormons in California and elsewhere abundantly gave their money and time in a furious effort to get the ballot measure over the top. The night Barack Obama carried California in a landslide, Proposition 8 eked out a narrow victory. A church infamous for its defense of polygamy in the late 19th century had become the backbone of the 21st century campaign against gay marriage.

Well, no. The Church is defending marriage against those who seek to radically redefine - and eventually undermind and destroy - it.

I posted a thread on what I think you are suggesting i.e. "The LDS is Church is not against ssm, the LDS Church supports 'traditional' marriage. That is not the stance of the LDS Church, the LDS is against ssm and karl rovian double talk does not change that. The Church did campaign via its members against ssm. And as for "words" i.e. marriage or family, those get redefined too. at one point in US history marriage was defined that only certain "groups" could marry each other. As for the polygamy snippet, it is very much a false statement to claim a polygamous marriage is acceptable "form" of traditional, if such was the case The LDS Church would most likely have actively and openly practiced polygamy well into the 20th century. to support polygamy and be against ssm, on any basis other than "god said", is to make oneself look foolish (i am not suggesting you have ever stated that polygamy meets the one man one woman definition of traditional marriage, however in the federal case against prop 8 the statement was made that polygamy meets the one man one woman definition of marriage, others on this board have stated the same.)

The film also asserts that the church should lose its tax-exempt status because of its support for Proposition 8.

Wow! It's a good thing the proponents of SSM are not out to destroy those with which they disagree. Or something...

The LDS Church uses the law to its advantage, should not others be allowed the same advantage of the law? Also, your response, goes to your seemingly inability to be objective about this. And for many in favor of SSM they see it as a rights issue, to which the "bigotry" of religion should not apply; meaning keep your religion out of my politics and I'll keep my politics out of your religion" (not refering to you smac specifically)

Consider these questions:

1. Is it a violation of the IRS for a Tax Exempt organization to be involved in political or legislative matters? (see linked article questions 5 - 6) Answer, yes it is, there may be caveats but the IRS have not defined them. I would dare say the IRS does not even know what a violation is.

2. Did the LDS Church issue statements "from the top" instructing a suggested path for Members to take on a political issue? Yes, it did.

3. Does the LDS Church active involvement in the Prop 8 campaign seemingly violate the IRS Code on Tax exempt status? Yes, it does.

4. Does the LDS Church claim as a right to become involved in political matters on a moral basis? Yes, it does.

5. Does the IRS distinguich between "moral" political matters and other matters when it comes to Tax exempt status? Not likely, "An organization that engages in substantial activity aimed at influencing legislation is disqualified from a tax exemption, whatever the motivation. The applicability of the influencing legislation clause is not affected by the selfish and unselfish motives and interests of the organization, and it applies to all..."

from the linked article

Reg. 1.501

[frankenstein]

One of the main reasons Prop 8 passed was the "Black vote". It was totally ironic watching the election returns on a region by region basis- South Central LA went overwhelmingly for Obama AND in favor of prop 8.

isn't is just as insidious to "blame" the blacks as it is for the ssm side to "blame" the LDS Church? Have you looked atpopulation numbers? Do you know how terribly small the "black" population is in Ca.?

[Nathair/|\]

The important thing is that a major assault on the Constitution was averted, for now.

Yours under the liberty loving oaks,

Nathair /|\

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

All false modesty aside. The Mormons in California had A role in passing prop 8. But we are small potatoes compared to other churches, and like minded groups. Further the Anti 8 forces out spend us by a comfortable margin.

[the narrator]

The Mormons in California had A role in passing prop 8. But we are small potatoes compared to other churches, and like minded groups.

Not when it comes to $$ spent and man-hours volunteered, which may have accounted for as high as 50% and 80% respectively.

[Walden]

The important thing is that a major assault on the Constitution was averted, for now.

Yours under the liberty loving oaks,

Nathair /|\

Yes, what a terrifying assualt on our Constitution, to ensure that all people are given equal rights under the law....let's make sure that never happens so that we can save our Constitution!

[the narrator]

Yes, what a terrifying assualt on our Constitution, to ensure that all people are given equal rights under the law....let's make sure that never happens so that we can save our Constitution!

Almost as bad as when abolitionists, women suffragists, and Martin Luther King attacked the constitution.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not when it comes to $$ spent and man-hours volunteered, which may have accounted for as high as 50% and 80% respectively.

67.6% of all stats are made up on the spot.

Yes, what a terrifying assualt on our Constitution, to ensure that all people are given equal rights under the law....let's make sure that never happens so that we can save our Constitution!

Alas the standard chestnut that rights are being denied because we don't buckle under the ruse of a redefinition of marriage.

[the narrator]

67.6% of all stats are made up on the spot.

You denying the figures?

Alas the standard chestnut that rights are being denied because we don't buckle under the ruse of a redefinition of marriage.

sounds like something said before it was legal for my interracial parents to get married.

[mfbukowski]

However, I know for a fact that some lost their callings and/or temple recommends for publicly opposing Prop. 8. I should note, however, that this was different from simply not supporting it.

I am not doubting your assertion, certainly such things might have happened, but I am just wondering why you take this to be a "fact" unless this happened to you personally- and obviously then I would not expect you to disclose it.

How someone would know this seems to present a problem to me, that's all.

The reasons someone loses a calling or recommend are never made public and if someone made it public, it would be the individual who was "victimized" and then I would imagine that their motives for making the alleged "disclosure" might be suspect, which leaves open the possibility that it happened for another reason.

In fact, I would wonder if such a person already had an "axe to grind" against the church and was just using prop 8 opposition as an excuse to publicize their supposed persecution.

[mfbukowski]

isn't is just as insidious to "blame" the blacks as it is for the ssm side to "blame" the LDS Church? Have you looked atpopulation numbers? Do you know how terribly small the "black" population is in Ca.?

I was praising them! All the Blacks I know were ecstatic, and took full credit for it. I had to remind them that we helped a little.

[wenglund]

Yes, what a terrifying assualt on our Constitution, to ensure that all people are given equal rights under the law....let's make sure that never happens so that we can save our Constitution!

By "all people", are you including children, mentally handicapped, incestuous relations, or any other segment of our society that currently doesn't qualify for the state sanction?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mapman]

All adults can legally marry in California.

[selek]

Yes, what a terrifying assualt on our Constitution, to ensure that all people are given equal rights under the law....let's make sure that never happens so that we can save our Constitution!

Walden, your statement clearly demonstrates the inanity of the anti-8 argument.

Homosexuals already have all the same rights as heterosexuals. As an individual, a homosexual has EXACTLY the same rights I do. That is equal protection under the law.

What the radical homosexual movement is demanding is that we privilege their lifestyle and relationships in a fashion never before seen.

What they are demanding is that we radically redefine both the fundamental unit of our society and the basic premises of our society in order to legitimize deviant and self-destructive behavior.

They are demanding sanction and acceptance- in short, politically correct thought control.

That is NOT a civil rights issue.

That's a tactic right out of Orwell's worst nightmare.

[the narrator]

Walden, your statement clearly demonstrates the inanity of the anti-8 argument.

Homosexuals already have all the same rights as heterosexuals. As an individual, a homosexual has EXACTLY the same rights I do. That is equal protection under the law.

What the radical homosexual movement is demanding is that we privilege their lifestyle and relationships in a fashion never before seen.

What they are demanding is that we radically redefine both the fundamental unit of our society and the basic premises of our society in order to legitimize deviant and self-destructive behavior.

They are demanding sanction and acceptance- in short, politically correct thought control.

That is NOT a civil rights issue.

That's a tactic right out of Orwell's worst nightmare.

again. Sounds like the very same arguments used against my parent's interracial marriage.

[yesucan2]

Personally, I think it is perfectly understandable that people would see prop 8 the way they do.

A couple of factors I have considered and I think should be considered when thinking of this is that apparently the Lord recognizes civil marriages as valid, and marriages have legal consequences.

This is my major take on it. Generally the Church tends to stay out of political causes. In my 35 years in the Church, I have never seen anything like this. It's just not something the Church does. The only way that I can see that the Church would have dared be involved in this like it was is if the Lord made it perfectly clear in a very obvious way that it was His intention for the Church to be involved with this to this extent.

[ERMD]

Why are you Mormons so reluctant to take credit for the victory?

But for the substantial money and manpower the Mormons contributed to Prop 8, it may very well have been defeated.

To say otherwise, is an insult to those who donated significant time and money to the cause.

The point is not who gets credit.

The point is, why do the supporters of SSM make movies/videos/"documentaries", or write columns and blogs criticizing the black or evangelical communities for supporting prop 8?

[ERMD]

Not when it comes to $$ spent and man-hours volunteered, which may have accounted for as high as 50% and 80% respectively.

CFR.