BREAKING NEWS: Major Article Exposing Churches "Prop 8" Activity in the Works

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

................................................................. 

As with most of these revelations...I'm guessing that this new leak will roll off the backs of believers as water on a duck...but I ask again...how do you justify supporting an organization that is, in the most generous terms possible,  less than honest when caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

A lot of guessing here, Johnnie, and a rush to judgment even before the promised article has been published.  Not a very honest way to make reckless charges of dishonesty.  So any Mormon believer is now automatically guilty of supporting dishonesty?  No need for a trial, just take him out and hang him.

[Gillebre]

Breaking News!!!

 

I usually expect my breaking news to come with..actual news. Oh well.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really? 

Disaster relief groups wear easily identifiable uniforms with the name of the group, distinctive logos, and colors. Are Mormons not supposed to have them? Is wearing a Helping Hands t-shirt supposed to be evidence of some sort of villainy?

Edited March 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

 

Always happy to have my grammar and/or spelling corrected... so passive aggressive

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Disaster relief groups wear easily identifiable uniforms with the name of the group, distinctive logos, and colors. Are Mormons not supposed to have them? Is wearing a Helping Hands t-shirt supposed to be evidence of some sort of villainy?

Matthew 8:3-4  What would Jesus do?

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of guessing here, Johnnie, and a rush to judgment even before the promised article has been published.  Not a very honest way to make reckless charges of dishonesty.  So any Mormon believer is now automatically guilty of supporting dishonesty?  No need for a trial, just take him out and hang him.

Yeah probably guilty of some of those charges...just wanted to give everyone a heads up on some information and I'm probably guilty of putting my own bias' into my post... I was aware of information that others on this board may not have been aware of and wanted to share...obviously I'm not perfect...but most of my intentions were sincere.

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

In other words, "While I haven't actually seen the evidence and have practically no idea of what it might contain, it is an accurate depiction of what actually happened in reality."  

I am not necessarily denying the claim, but I have never heard this before.  Do you have a reference for context etc.?

See my reply to Robert F Smith

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, pretty.  It is odd that you are ready to burn 'em at the stake and yet you don't know anything.  The Church played a minor or a major role relative who whom?  Leaks from the Church may reveal what the Church thought or even did, but it will do nothing to reveal what every other organization, individual, person, group did.  Do you see how irrational and/or illogical your position is above?  You are creating a problem and convicting another based on something that has not been "exposed" - love those dramatic words that lead everyone to the position of yelling out GUILTY!!! - that will NOT reveal anything about anyone else.  

You have become so twisted in your logic it isn't even enjoyable to read your posts.  How do you jusitfy being so twisted and then I will again explain how I can think rationally and still be a LDS?!?

I agree my post was intended to get attention and did jump to conclusions before having access to the article that is in the works...but twisted...seems we're both guilty of jumping to conclusions

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really? 

I see Jesus Christ in pretty big letters there. Also, I've no problem doing good things because I love His church because i know that ultimately I love Him. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Darren10

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

See my reply to Robert F Smith

Ya thanks, I am interested in the claim that the church plaid a "minor role".  Do you have a source for that claim from the church?  I would be curious to see the context and what they meant by that. 

[juliann]

On 3/22/2017 at 8:18 AM, california boy said:

And so it begins.  Mormons didn't pass Prop 8, everyone else did.  So it is not the churches fault.  Yet no one wants to address HOW the church convinced others to vote the way they did.  The deceitful advertisements that were aired that distorted the justification for taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  Setting up of fake organizations and then claiming they had noting to do with the Mormon church.  Manipulating those that weren't Mormon to be the tip of the spear so that the church would not be exposed for its actions.  These are what the issues are Darren, not who voted for Prop 8.  No one is claiming that the Mormon vote is what got Prop 8 passed.

I'm not going to get into this very tired debate but I was there. The campaign was lost not won. The NO ran a horrible, horrible campaign with its share of lying ads. Do we really have to go through the list of promises of things that wouldn't happen...and did, almost immediately? YES probably won it with the one ad of parents reading a book that NO claimed was not in a school.  When NO saw how effective the opposition was, they finally got some picketers and signs made. But too late. Everyone, including me, thought it was a slam dunk. I still remember the local TV stations wouldn't call it, long after it was clear there weren't enough precinct numbers left to put it over the top. I thought they knew something I didn't because I would look at the numbers on the screen and add it up myself. So I went to bed thinking YES had lost. 

I'm not making this a matter of who was right or wrong. Water under the bridge and people did need to treat gays equally. But this nonstop revisionism is annoying. The church, no matter how dishonest they might have been, was but one cog in a big wheel. Anybody who has kept up with it knows that it was the black churches that put it over the top by getting their voters out. 

This isn't about Prop 8, it is, as always about bringing down the church. And it is getting tiresome.

[Gray]

Here it is, apparently:

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/mormon-church-gay-marriage-prop-8/

"The long crusade: How the Mormon Church continues to war against gay marriage"

 

I haven't read it yet.

[probablyHagoth7]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

....now automatically guilty of supporting dishonesty?  No need for a trial, just take him out and hang him.

Silly String is much more appropriate.

Edited March 23, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Johnnie Cake]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ya thanks, I am interested in the claim that the church plaid a "minor role".  Do you have a source for that claim from the church?  I would be curious to see the context and what they meant by that. 

as opposed to a major role?

[Johnnie Cake]

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here it is, apparently:

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/mormon-church-gay-marriage-prop-8/

"The long crusade: How the Mormon Church continues to war against gay marriage"

 

I haven't read it yet.

Uggg....I totally over sold the "Major News Site" part of my OP but the article does seem to substantiate the rest of my OP...that the church took a major role in Prop 8. I've never even heard of the Daily Dot...however Huffington Post seems to thing they are an important and credible news organization.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/the-daily-dot

I read the article,  overall a well written, balanced piece of journalism....but not the piece I was led to believe would "cause the **** to hit the fan" 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here it is, apparently:

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/mormon-church-gay-marriage-prop-8/

"The long crusade: How the Mormon Church continues to war against gay marriage"

I read through it and didn't see anything that hadn't been reported at the time. I like the caveat in the article. "This was not known concretely before." Well it was widely reported. There's also places where I think they're being a bit unfair via selectivity. Such as:

Quote

Though the LDS Church has been taking steps toward LGBTQ inclusion since the fallout over Prop 8—when widespread backlash led to many Mormons leaving the faith—the amicus brief was a reminder that things have stayed the same as much as they have changed.

Ignoring the issue of what on earth that last sentence means, there were changes to the Church's policy and the Church's willingness to compromise on some issues in Utah prior to Prop-8. I think the earlier recognition by Oaks that for many people it wasn't a choice was huge for instance. Of course the Church hasn't done what many LGBTQ activists want, which is basically full acceptance and normalization of gay relations, I think the Church has changed a lot.

Overall the article clearly was pretty one sided. Perhaps understandably so given the huge gulf between the sides on this. While the Church has made moves, nothing they do will be enough as I mentioned. And the other side really sees no need for compromise. If anything we're seeing socially a drive to a type of social orthodoxy rather than pluralism.

Edited March 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

.................................................................

Quote

the amicus brief was a reminder that things have stayed the same as much as they have changed.

Ignoring the issue of what on earth that last sentence means, there were changes to the Church's policy and the Church's willingness to compromise on some issues in Utah prior to Prop-8. I think the earlier recognition by Oaks that for many people it wasn't a choice was huge for instance. Of course the Church hasn't done what many LGBTQ activists want, which is basically full acceptance and normalization of gay relations, I think the Church has changed a lot.

..........................................................................

The sentence you wondered about is an allusion to the well-known French phrase, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

But there's no proof that they were directed to do this by the leadership in Salt Lake.  It looks like it is more of a local effort, coordinated by local community members who just happen to be LDS, so the Church shouldn't be given the credit for this.

When I lived in southern California, our ward regularly did community actions in support of Eagle Scout projects, which might involve painting a building in a nature preserve, doing trail work, doing extensive weeding near parklands, or the like.  We didn't wear any yellow vests, but we got some hard work done, and there was always a snack & drink table.  We basically had a lot of fun and felt good at the end of the day.  We never even thought of Salt Lake during those times, and I don't recall the LDS Church getting any credit.  The same applied to those Saturday mornings when everyone would show up to help load a rental truck for a move by a member-couple and their children.  It was just the right thing to do.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I agree my post was intended to get attention and did jump to conclusions before having access to the article that is in the works...but twisted...seems we're both guilty of jumping to conclusions

We become twisted when our perception is so slanted that we don't recognize how badly we interpret or see things.  It is evident by our words and actions when we have become twisted and no one is kidding anyone on this board.  It is not a matter of jumping to conclusions it is staring me in the face.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

We become twisted when our perception is so slanted that we don't recognize how badly we interpret or see things.  It is evident by our words and actions when we have become twisted and no one is kidding anyone on this board.  It is not a matter of jumping to conclusions it is staring me in the face.

See, I would honestly like to understand why you use the word "twisted" to describe my view on my OP.  Is it because my views differ with yours?  Was it due to my use of descriptor words that you found offensive?  Was it the tone of my post?  Honestly I would like to understand.  Twisted to me suggests someone who is motivated by sick deviant behavior...is this how you view my participation on this board as sick deviant behavior?  Please do tell...

Edited March 23, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure if I have enough energy to do another Prop 8 thread.  

I feel and share your exhaustion on this one, CaliforniaBoy!!! 

I started writing a response to Darren's comment of "...even while citing due process, they made this ruling with no constitutional support so far as I am concerned," but finally decided that it's pointless to argue the matter. 

Everyone that's relevant to the final outcome agrees that Obergefell is now settled law, including both President Trump and his Supreme Court Nominee, Mr. Gorsuch.

Even though I'm disheartened when fellow citizens continue to argue that the law should treat my marriage differently than theirs simply because of the gender of my spouse, and refuse to accept that the constitutional mandates of equal protection and due process of law should apply to our families, I am grateful I live in a nation that recognizes the legality and inherent civic worthiness of my marriage. 

I'm grateful for a court system that upheld constitutional principles which ultimately offered my husband and I equal dignity and respect so far as our government and the law is concerned.  Thankfully, Justice is blind to the prejudices of humankind.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Daniel2

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The sentence you wondered about is an allusion to the well-known French phrase, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Right but my point was more about what stays the same. 

[halconero]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Uggg....I totally over sold the "Major News Site" part of my OP but the article does seem to substantiate the rest of my OP...that the church took a major role in Prop 8. I've never even heard of the Daily Dot...however Huffington Post seems to thing they are an important and credible news organization.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/the-daily-dot

I read the article,  overall a well written, balanced piece of journalism....but not the piece I was led to believe would "cause the **** to hit the fan" 

Posters on /r/exmormon overselling stuff? Noooooooo.

[Johnnie Cake]

40 minutes ago, halconero said:

Posters on /r/exmormon overselling stuff? Noooooooo.

/r/exmormon???  How does /r/exmormon have anything to do with my post?  And in all do respect...I took ownership of my post acknowledge that based on its outcome I oversold...so it is rather rude of you to be so snide

[juliann]

Too bad they couldn't have "exposed" the campaign instructions which every stake, if not ward had, to the No campaign so they could have put on a better campaign. And for those who didn't know, members were not allowed to do anything in Church buildings, even talk about it aside from a couple of announcements, all money had to be mailed to that group spearheading the whole thing. I did get a call asking me to hold a sign towards the end, and I did, but nobody ever pressured or badgered. In hindsight, I don't think it was worth it but I still think it needs to be related accurately and fairly.