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

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

As long as you and Stormrider realize that not only the majority of the Supreme Court justices but virtually every single federal and district judge in this country strongly disagree with your legal opinion.  All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples.  They have studied Constitutional law for years.  They have served for years on the bench carefully protecting those rights for Americans.  Yet you presume you understand the law better than all of them combined.  Well that is certainly your right, but I doubt very much that your understanding of the Constitution will have much sway amongst the legal profession.

"All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples."

Sounds good. It sets things up for snyone to get married and you have no say in it. Can't wait. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have long since tired of the topic - but I will say that there is a wide divide between a judiciary that decides not based on constitutional law, but on a more "progressive" policy.  I don't believe for a minute that this purported "right" is found within the US Constitution.  Having said that, I personally have no problems with all of the social benefits that one perceives of belonging to married couples being shared with those who live in a stable relationship.  I am speaking of inheritance benefits, insurance/pension funds benefits, hospital visits, taxes, etc.  

What pervades our judiciary are judges that are far more prone to create "rights" from a committment to policy rather than actually judging based on what is written.  They jump too far and have taken over the role of the Legislative Branch of government.  Activists enjoy this because they seek out opportunities to "win" their position by judicial fiat rather than by legislative action.  I would much rather see a judiciary that says clearly, "This is a legislative problem and needs their immediate attention. Until then we cannot and will not grant rights to policical causes."  Yes, I still have pipe dreams.

This article does a much better job of identifying some of the problems of our judiciary.  I do hope that Daniel and Cal both understand that I support the benefits, but I reject the idea that a marriage is simply the result of two people "in love". There is so much more to the thousands of years of human history that is built upon the need for procreation and the best social structure is the marriage of individuals of the opposite sex.  Having said that I have no problem with anyone living in a committed relationship regardless of their gender.  It may sound like a fine line, but it is very distinct in my mind.  I have said this before, but it gets lost in the debate too easily.  

Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

As long as you and Stormrider realize that not only the majority of the Supreme Court justices but virtually every single federal and district judge in this country strongly disagree with your legal opinion.  All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples.  They have studied Constitutional law for years.  They have served for years on the bench carefully protecting those rights for Americans.  Yet you presume you understand the law better than all of them combined.  Well that is certainly your right, but I doubt very much that your understanding of the Constitution will have much sway amongst the legal profession.

What do you base your numbers on and could you be specific as to your source? (For the record, I do believe you are numerically correct). Also, why in over 200 years of the Constitution do judges find only now the Constitutional right to marry whomever one wants to marry? 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Darren10

[Bob Crockett]

As a paper I published at Rutgers demonstrated, the influences which led to the passage of Prop 8 did not include the Church, at least statistically speaking.  Google Crockett Rutgers Proposition 8.   Being a black voter was the single most significant factor.  Black pastors were pounding the pulpit for the Obama vote at the time.  And for Prop 8.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage. 

Why don't you start by listing all the benefits of society that straight marriages bring to society.  

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

As long as you and Stormrider realize that not only the majority of the Supreme Court justices but virtually every single federal and district judge in this country strongly disagree with your legal opinion.  All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples.  They have studied Constitutional law for years.  They have served for years on the bench carefully protecting those rights for Americans.  Yet you presume you understand the law better than all of them combined.  Well that is certainly your right, but I doubt very much that your understanding of the Constitution will have much sway amongst the legal profession.

I think Chief Justice Roberts was managing his local McDonald's before President Bush the younger plucked him out of obscurity and offered him his current position. Similarly, Justice Alito was pumping gas.  Justice Thomas was a greeter at Wal-Mart before President Bush the elder appointed him, while Justice Scalia was a busboy at an Italian restaurant (though I think, at least, it was a four-star Italian restaurant) before President Reagan appointed him. I think they've all got their high school diplomas, but I'm not sure ...   

Edited March 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage. 

I don't endorse gay marriage - it is a misnomer and contrary to all of human history.  However, as a society I think we should allow people who seek to live in union with one another to do so without penalizing them i.e. the rights accorded married couples should be open to more people.  

I am against calling it a marrige - in fact, I think the government should get out of the marriage business and allow that to remain strictly a religious ordinance. The government should govern civil unions. 

[Kenngo1969]

51 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a paper I published at Rutgers demonstrated, the influences which led to the passage of Prop 8 did not include the Church, at least statistically speaking.  Google Crockett Rutgers Proposition 8.   Being a black voter was the single most significant factor.  Black pastors were pounding the pulpit for the Obama vote at the time.  And for Prop 8.

http://lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Crockett.pdf

Just ... didn't want to toot your own horn too loudly, there, Bro. Crockett?  

Edited March 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples."

Sounds good. It sets things up for snyone to get married and you have no say in it. Can't wait. 

Obergeefell v. Hodges ruling was a consolidation of a number of Federal Appeals court rulings.  In Michigan it was DeBoer v. Snyder.  In Ohio it ws Obergefell v.Kasicg. and Henry v. Wymysio.  In Kentucky it was Bourke v. Beshear. and Love v. Beshear.  In Tennessee it was Tanco v. Haslam.  In the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth circuits. bans on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional based on both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..  Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, gay marriage was already legal in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, Guam Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  It was only the Sixth circuit that said it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such state bans constitutional.  The Supreme Court consolidated all of these rulings into Obergeefell v. Hodges and as you know ruled in favor of gay marriage.  This list doesn't include all of the district courts that also ruled in favor of gay marriage that were presented prior to making their way to the Federal Appeals courts.

So yeah your legal opinion goes against virtually every other federal and district court that has judges that have risen to the highest levels in their profession, appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress as well as the majority of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.  I think you can see why your opinion of constitutional law might not have much credibility.  But hey, you and Stormrider are certainly entitled to your opinions.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

As a paper I published at Rutgers demonstrated, the influences which led to the passage of Prop 8 did not include the Church, at least statistically speaking.  Google Crockett Rutgers Proposition 8.   Being a black voter was the single most significant factor.  Black pastors were pounding the pulpit for the Obama vote at the time.  And for Prop 8.

Another member of the church downplaying the role the Mormon Church played in passing Prop 8.  It is as if the Mormon church had nothing to do with passing Prop 8.  What a surprise.  Nothing to see here.  Spending 20 million dollars and providing 70% of the manpower to make this proposition pass had nothing to do with it's passing.  I don't even know why people campaign.  They should just let black voters decide elections.  They are the ones with the real power.

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

...  It was only the Sixth circuit that said it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such state bans constitutional.  The Supreme Court consolidated all of these rulings into Obergeefell v. Hodges and as you know ruled in favor of gay marriage.  This list doesn't include all of the district courts that also ruled in favor of gay marriage that were presented prior to making their way to the Federal Appeals courts.

So yeah your legal opinion goes against virtually every other federal and district court that has judges that have risen to the highest levels in their profession, appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress as well as the majority of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.  I think you can see why your opinion of constitutional law might not have much credibility.  But hey, you and Stormrider are certainly entitled to your opinions.

I don't think your use of the word credibility is appropriate here, Cali-Cali-Boy.  It imputes bad faith/dishonesty to your interlocutors when they simply disagree with you.  (Credibility = Believability, which implies Dishonesty).  But at least you finally got your facts/history straight.  I won't hold my breath waiting for you to give anyone else credit for setting you straight on that score, but ...

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/on-gay-marriage-and-religious-conscience/

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage. 

Maybe your society, but not society in general

[Daniel2]

Is this the new article with new leaks about the church's involvement that the OP is referring to?:

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

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Another member of the church downplaying the role the Mormon Church played in passing Prop 8.  It is as if the Mormon church had nothing to do with passing Prop 8.  What a surprise.  Nothing to see here.  Spending 20 million dollars and providing 70% of the manpower to make this proposition pass had nothing to do with it's passing.  I don't even know why people campaign.  They should just let black voters decide elections.  They are the ones with the real power.

I'm rather neutral.    I'm libertarian and politically inclined to support gay marriage so long as government provides.for marriage.  I'm citing statistics.  I don't downplay the church's huge support.  My paper points it out.    My paper was peer reviewed.   

Edited March 25, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Why don't you start by listing all the benefits of society that straight marriages bring to society.  

First and foremost it is the natural design of reproducing the population. Second, It also reinforces sexual exclusivity. Third, it aknowledges that children need a mother and a father. 

Here's a good article on this: http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Maybe your society, but not society in general

Society in general does not need marriage? Wow! 

Note that I am all for government staying out of marriage and letting people decide for themselves what it is. But, as long as it licenses marriage, I stand for traditional marriage and traditional marriage only being licensed. 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Obergeefell v. Hodges ruling was a consolidation of a number of Federal Appeals court rulings.  In Michigan it was DeBoer v. Snyder.  In Ohio it ws Obergefell v.Kasicg. and Henry v. Wymysio.  In Kentucky it was Bourke v. Beshear. and Love v. Beshear.  In Tennessee it was Tanco v. Haslam.  In the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth circuits. bans on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional based on both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..  Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, gay marriage was already legal in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, Guam Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  It was only the Sixth circuit that said it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such state bans constitutional.  The Supreme Court consolidated all of these rulings into Obergeefell v. Hodges and as you know ruled in favor of gay marriage.  This list doesn't include all of the district courts that also ruled in favor of gay marriage that were presented prior to making their way to the Federal Appeals courts.

So yeah your legal opinion goes against virtually every other federal and district court that has judges that have risen to the highest levels in their profession, appointed by the President of the United States and approved by Congress as well as the majority of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.  I think you can see why your opinion of constitutional law might not have much credibility.  But hey, you and Stormrider are certainly entitled to your opinions.

You're factually correct but this answers the wrong post. You answered this post, "What do you base your numbers on and could you be specific as to your source? (For the record, I do believe you are numerically correct). Also, why in over 200 years of the Constitution do judges find only now the Constitutional right to marry whomever one wants to marry? " - So, why in over 200 years of constitutional history are we only now finding a constitutional right to gay marriage? 

As for the post you cited, does not the very arguments used in the courts to support gay marriage also apply to anyone who wants to marry anyone or anything?  

EDITED TO AD: Also, since you apparently find disagreeing with judges by someone like me laughable (after all, I'm just a mere voting citizen, do, what do I know?), then are you not setting up a society in which the judges have spoken and therefore we all must comply? Doesn't that shut up the voice of the people? And what role does the Legislative Branch of government have if their laws can be overturned by a mere dozen or so unelected officials and create new law out of it?

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Darren10

[Calm]

The Church has been open and clear about the purposes of the program:

https://www.lds.org/topics/humanitarian-service/helping-hands?lang=eng&old=true

"The program provides priesthood leaders with an optional service opportunity for Church members and helps establish the name and reputation of the Church. It is a proven means of helping dispel stereotypes often held about the Church, showing that Latter-day Saints are Christians who contribute to the good of their communities.

The “Mormon Helping Hands” designation helps identify the Church’s role in the activity: to provide service laborers and usually not goods or materials. Successful projects have been conducted throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Pacific, and the United States. Coordination, implementation, and evaluation of these projects is usually delegated to local Public Affairs councils.

Objectives for Mormon Helping Hands

Helping Hands Help the Needy and Improve Communities

Service to others is an important characteristic of the followers of Jesus Christ. Mormon Helping Hands provides organized opportunities for Church members to give their time and talents to bless those in need. It also gives members the opportunity to beautify city streets, parks, schools, and recreational areas and to serve in other ways, showing that the Church is a friend to the community.

Strengthen Church Members

Through Mormon Helping Hands, youth and adults become more sensitive to the challenges others face. As Church members follow the example of the Savior in reaching out and helping others, their testimonies are strengthened. These projects are also valuable opportunities for Church members to fellowship less-active friends.

Share the Gospel Indirectly

Through Mormon Helping Hands, Church members have opportunities to portray the fruits of their faith and dispel unfounded criticism and prejudice toward the Church. While this program is not to be used for proselyting, these activities can help create conditions that are favorable for gospel conversations and may on occasion provide the opportunity to engage missionaries in teaching those who want to know more.

Build Relationships with Opinion Leaders

Church Public Affairs exists to “build strategic relationships with opinion leaders who affect the reputation of the Church of Jesus Christ.” Service is a powerful tool for influencing the beliefs and opinions of prominent individuals. Mormon Helping Hands is especially effective in developing beneficial relationships between Church leaders and government officials or other opinion leaders.

Enhance the Reputation of the Church

Mormon Helping Hands helps bring the Church out of obscurity and can greatly improve its reputation. Local media interest in these projects helps spread the knowledge of the Church to many who would not otherwise hear of it."

Edited March 25, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"All of these justices clearly believe that the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee equal protection under the law for EVERYONE including gay couples."

Sounds good. It sets things up for snyone to get married and you have no say in it. Can't wait. 

9- 4 = 9. 

Math sure is funny.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Society in general does not need marriage? Wow! 

Note that I am all for government staying out of marriage and letting people decide for themselves what it is. But, as long as it licenses marriage, I stand for traditional marriage and traditional marriage only being licensed. 

No, what I'm saying is society in general does not need or want marriage to be a "straights only" privilege.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

No, what I'm saying is society in general does not need or want marriage to be a "straights only" privilege.

Your reply was to my post, "Society has a very significant interest in endorsing traditional marriage whereas I cannot think of one single benefit beyond romantic notions why it needs to endorse gay marriage." By 'interest' I did not mean "want" or "desire" but, "it's in their best interest whether they like it or not".

Edited March 26, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

9- 4 = 9. 

Math sure is funny.

LOL. Good example. So long is you get 9, it doesn't matter what process you use to get there.

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

It is my opinion that true charity is given anonymously or without an underlying motivation for recognition and credit.  You are free to disagree. If charity is the true love of Christ, then there is no need to be identified as anything other than a unidentified person who is part of a collective offering a helping hand.  Honestly, Bernard Gui, 40 years ago...when the Teton Dam broke, yes I'm that old,...thousands of people from the Wasatch front left work and family to assist in the clean up...not a single person wore a yellow tee shirt.  What has changed in the past 40 years to that the church now desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts when it serves to benefit them  and frankly that offends me. Sorry but that is how I see it.  If they did not seek attention and recognition they wouldn't wear the shirts identifying volunteers as members of the church....and they could still provide the same service...but what they wouldn't receive is the same recognition and media attention plan and simple

Sigh.
 
In my opinion “true charity” also includes being charitable when judging those who volunteer to help others. 

In thread after thread, the LDS church has been criticized for not doing enough “humanitarian service.”  But when it does do what even our critics admit is humanitarian service, we are told it is not really “true charity.”  And why?  Because of our shirts.  

What has changed in the last 40 years since the Teton Dam break is that disaster responders have continued to learn from each new incident and have modified their SOPs accordingly.  (For that matter, I doubt that there were even any national training standards or recommended SOPs for civilian volunteers before the mid-1990s).  There are probably a lot of things that would be done differently, had the Teton Dam incident occurred today.  

Every disaster response group with which I have worked or trained wears some sort of uniform (if only a vest) that clearly identifies their group’s affiliation.  As rpm pointed out:

“The reason you wear your yellow vest [or some other sort of uniform that clearly identifies your group’s affiliation]  in disaster relief is to give comfort to those you are helping that you are a safe person to let into their home.   And so that others can know that you also belong with the groups that are taking the assignments from the same people.    Of course residual positive exposure comes to the church, but that isn't the reason you wear them.   It allows those in charge to watch after you, and those you serve to accept the service, and potential scammers to bypass where you are because of the risk of being caught for doing bad things by those in the vests.“

Have you, personally, had any disaster response training, whatsoever?  Even a basic CERT class -- a standardized training class designed for volunteers with no previous training?  (The class is free; you can probably get information on how to sign up for the class from your local fire station).  Among other things, the CERT class teaches  the importance of the concepts to which rpm alludes.  

Not letting “one hand know what the other hand is doing” is fine when donating money, but counterproductive and possibly even dangerous when it comes to disaster response.  Indeed, one of the primary purposes of having a standardized “incident command system” for disaster response is to make sure that “one hand does know what the other hand is doing.”

You said:

 “the church now desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts when it serves to benefit them  and frankly that offends me. Sorry but that is how I see it.”

How could the Church’s  “desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts” possibly hurt anyone?  On the other hand, impugning the motives of those who are willing to donate their time to help disaster victims -- over something as petty as a shirt-- is hurtful.  And frankly, that offends me.   

Since I am a volunteer responder committed to other agencies, I probably will never respond to a disaster wearing the “Helping Hands” shirt.  So, I really cannot speak for those that do.  But in my experience, most volunteer responders do not seek personal recognition or even a “thank you” -- although an occasional simple “thank you“ would be appreciated.  (As for those who do, so what?  Such recognition costs society nothing.) On the other hand, many volunteer responders tend to be sensitive to petty criticism from “outsiders.”   I have seen long time dedicated volunteers quit over such petty criticism.  In one instance, I have even seen it destroy an entire volunteer responder group.  And that is hurtful to the entire community.  

BTW,  when I an deployed in the field, I would prefer to wear yellow (or another highly visible color) for personal safety reasons. Not to call attention to myself or my agency for self promotion purposes.  Of course, the choice of “uniform” is not up to me.                    

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Sigh.
 
In my opinion “true charity” also includes being charitable when judging those who volunteer to help others. 

In thread after thread, the LDS church has been criticized for not doing enough “humanitarian service.”  But when it does do what even our critics admit is humanitarian service, we are told it is not really “true charity.”  And why?  Because of our shirts.  

What has changed in the last 40 years since the Teton Dam break is that disaster responders have continued to learn from each new incident and have modified their SOPs accordingly.  (For that matter, I doubt that there were even any national training standards or recommended SOPs for civilian volunteers before the mid-1990s).  There are probably a lot of things that would be done differently, had the Teton Dam incident occurred today.  

Every disaster response group with which I have worked or trained wears some sort of uniform (if only a vest) that clearly identifies their group’s affiliation.  As rpm pointed out:

“The reason you wear your yellow vest [or some other sort of uniform that clearly identifies your group’s affiliation]  in disaster relief is to give comfort to those you are helping that you are a safe person to let into their home.   And so that others can know that you also belong with the groups that are taking the assignments from the same people.    Of course residual positive exposure comes to the church, but that isn't the reason you wear them.   It allows those in charge to watch after you, and those you serve to accept the service, and potential scammers to bypass where you are because of the risk of being caught for doing bad things by those in the vests.“

Have you, personally, had any disaster response training, whatsoever?  Even a basic CERT class -- a standardized training class designed for volunteers with no previous training?  (The class is free; you can probably get information on how to sign up for the class from your local fire station).  Among other things, the CERT class teaches  the importance of the concepts to which rpm alludes.  

Not letting “one hand know what the other hand is doing” is fine when donating money, but counterproductive and possibly even dangerous when it comes to disaster response.  Indeed, one of the primary purposes of having a standardized “incident command system” for disaster response is to make sure that “one hand does know what the other hand is doing.”

You said:

 “the church now desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts when it serves to benefit them  and frankly that offends me. Sorry but that is how I see it.”

How could the Church’s  “desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts” possibly hurt anyone?  On the other hand, impugning the motives of those who are willing to donate their time to help disaster victims -- over something as petty as a shirt-- is hurtful.  And frankly, that offends me.   

Since I am a volunteer responder committed to other agencies, I probably will never respond to a disaster wearing the “Helping Hands” shirt.  So, I really cannot speak for those that do.  But in my experience, most volunteer responders do not seek personal recognition or even a “thank you” -- although an occasional simple “thank you“ would be appreciated.  (As for those who do, so what?  Such recognition costs society nothing.) On the other hand, many volunteer responders tend to be sensitive to petty criticism from “outsiders.”   I have seen long time dedicated volunteers quit over such petty criticism.  In one instance, I have even seen it destroy an entire volunteer responder group.  And that is hurtful to the entire community.  

BTW,  when I an deployed in the field, I would prefer to wear yellow (or another highly visible color) for personal safety reasons. Not to call attention to myself or my agency for self promotion purposes.  Of course, the choice of “uniform” is not up to me.                    

 

What I find problematic is that we've had thread after thread about why the church needs to be completely transparent and how much better it is for things to be known rather than not.  Threads judging the church for not telling people what they are doing.

And then we have threads like this one explaining why it's better for the church to keep some information hidden. Threads judging the church for telling people what they are doing. 

 

[Ouagadougou]

On 22.03.2017 at 7:31 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

While driving to work this morning listening to a podcast which included on its discussion panel Mormon Leaks proprietor Ryan McKnight...Ryan disclosed that a major American publication will be publishing an expose' on the depth of the LDS Churches involvement and activities in the opposition of California's Prop 8.  The article is based on new yet-to-be-leaked documents that Mormon Leaks has made exclusively available to this news organization (I'm thinking LA Times or SF Examiner or maybe even the NY Times) that run counter to church claims that they played only a minor role in the opposition to Prop 8.  The leak includes documents as well as power point presentations made by LDS GA's to California Church leader in how they should organize a resistance movement to promote votes for proposition 8.  (credit cinepro for correcting my non California citizen confusion)

While I have not seen the article and have limited information...I thought the news worthy of this board consideration as a heads up that the **** is about to hit the fan since what the church claimed at the time runs counter with what actually happened in reality. 

Evidently Ryan McKnight is not afraid of the churches legal threats nor is he backing off.  He also said that his web site maintains its own servers in Iceland  so that never again will the church be able to threaten third party hosting companies. 

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?

I lived in CA during the push for Proposition 8 and volunteered many hours calling random people on the phone (during ward activities) to get others to support the church's movement/stance.  In retrospect, this is something I deeply regret because I think the church should have stayed out of this issue altogether.  Also, my views on who should be allowed to marry have greatly changed over the last 8-9 years; I now believe that gays should be allowed to marry.

My question is this?  

Given the church's history/past with polygamy, what right does it have to tell others what the family unit should look like?  

For example, I found this from a thread a few years back about Lorenzo Snow (posted by VideoGameJunkie):

"At age 30, LDS Church Apostle Lorenzo Snow married 18-year old Charlotte Squires.

At age 31, Snow married 33-year old Mary Adaline Goddard.

At age 31, he married 18-year old Sarah Ann Prichard.

At age 32, he married 26-year old Harriet Amelia Squires.

At age 34, he married 17-year old Eleanor Houtz.

At age 39, he married 24-year old Caroline Horton.

At age 43, he married 17-year old Mary Elizabeth Houtz.

At age 44, he married 16-year old Phoebe Amelia Woodruff. (had 7 children together)

At age 57, he married 16-year old Sara Minnie Ephramina Jensen. (had a child a year later. Lorenzo had actually been courting her since she was 14, but married at 16)."

IMO, it's very hypocritical of the church to proclaim what marriage should look like, especially when early church leaders (prophets) in their late 50's were marrying young teenage girls.