Prop 8

[poptart]

Old topic, want an honest answer from someone.  Just how much support did this have from members?  I remember seeing the old video clips of the protests outside of the LA temple that i'm honestly suprised didn't turn into riots, what was the deal?  Most married couples I know did it mostly for survivor benefits, insurance and what not.  Why did the LDS faithful even care?  Was it really religious bigotry?

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, poptart said:

Old topic, want an honest answer from someone.  Just how much support did this have from members? 

My sense at the time was that there was a mixed bag.  Some (a majority?  plurality?) supported it on principle, others reluctantly or out of a sense of obligation, and still others who opposed it.  Not sure of the proportionate breakdown, though.

17 minutes ago, poptart said:

I remember seeing the old video clips of the protests outside of the LA temple that i'm honestly suprised didn't turn into riots, what was the deal? 

The rule of law, I think, played a big factor.

17 minutes ago, poptart said:

Most married couples I know did it mostly for survivor benefits, insurance and what not. 

Not sure what this means.  Survivor benefits?  Insurance?

17 minutes ago, poptart said:

Why did the LDS faithful even care? 

Our leaders asked us to support it.  Many heeded that call.

17 minutes ago, poptart said:

Was it really religious bigotry?

I don't think so.  As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8."  And yet nobody seems to go around asking black folks if they are bigots.  Funny, that.

I think it is quite possible to oppose same-sex marriage on principled grounds.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My sense at the time was that there was a mixed bag.  Some (a majority?  plurality?) supported it on principle, others reluctantly or out of a sense of obligation, and still others who opposed it.  Not sure of the proportionate breakdown, though.

The rule of law, I think, played a big factor.

Not sure what this means.  Survivor benefits?  Insurance?

Our leaders asked us to support it.  Many heeded that call.

I don't think so.  As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8."  And yet nobody seems to go around asking black folks if they are bigots.  Funny, that.

I think it is quite possible to oppose same-sex marriage on principled grounds.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I remember seeing a lot of cops, will be hilarious if something like this comes up again in an area that can't afford a lot of police protections, as it is think it's LA thats working on an amendment that makes any theft under 1k a misdomener.  Will be fun to watch them bus in Law enforcment from other areas to contain the rage.

 

Pretty much, survivor benefits, insurance etc.  So the leadership did have a hand in it, wow, my opinion of LDS leadership just went down a notch.

Only problem I have, when people oppose something here on moral grounds it usually involves harming them financially which nowadays leads to antifa/black lives matter tier protests which really puts a strain on law enforcment. 

[mfbukowski]

Somebody is smoking something funny around here, that ain't even legal in California. That's two strikes on survivor benefits. I haven't a clue what that is about.

It was a huge deal and widely supported. We went house-to-house with Flyers.

Edited April 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JAHS]

I supported the concept but I certainly was not going to stand on a corner holding a sign or call strangers on the phone and tell them what to vote for.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

I remember seeing a lot of cops, will be hilarious if something like this comes up again in an area that can't afford a lot of police protections, as it is think it's LA thats working on an amendment that makes any theft under 1k a misdomener.  Will be fun to watch them bus in Law enforcment from other areas to contain the rage.

 

Pretty much, survivor benefits, insurance etc.  So the leadership did have a hand in it, wow, my opinion of LDS leadership just went down a notch.

Only problem I have, when people oppose something here on moral grounds it usually involves harming them financially which nowadays leads to antifa/black lives matter tier protests which really puts a strain on law enforcment. 

Yeah, it was a real shame the way the prop 8 supporters got targeted

 

[poptart]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Somebody is smoking something funny around here, that ain't even legal in California. That's two strikes on survivor benefits. I haven't a clue what that is about.

It was a huge deal and widely supported. We went house-to-house with Flyers.

Nope, laying off the vape as of now, and its legal here ^_^.  Funny, still can't get willie to come back, i miss him.  He ever runs for prez i'm so voting for him, he'll solve all our problems. Get all the world leaders together and even if it's for like 20 minutes we'll have world peace, and a dorrito shortage lol.

So, here's my understanding, with marriage you get access to different insurance as well as survivor benefits if the spouse dies, took civil unions/marriage rights for the lgbtq community to finally have the same benefits of straight people.  Don'g get me wrong, the people who want to force churches to allow lgbtq people to marry within their holy halls are jerks, but when it bleeds into the secular realm that's where I draw the line, even Rome laid off.  Especially when it involves financial benefits I say if violent protesting/rioting is what it takes as an oppressed minority and you have nothing to lose?  Go for it.  All for religious liberty, but when it oppresses my choice of who I marry I say your rights end where mine begin, time to get ugly and if need be cruel.  That's the only thing that works on a bully sometimes.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah, it was a real shame the way the prop 8 supporters got targeted

 

Where the supporters arguing against gay marriage in a church or just in general in public life?

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, poptart said:

So the leadership did have a hand in it, wow, my opinion of LDS leadership just went down a notch. 

I am sure they would be crushed to hear this shocking news.

Edited April 24, 2018 by The Nehor

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am sure they would be crushed to heat this shocking news.

i'm sure they would be too, some raging homo disaproves, can see the headlines now.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, poptart said:

i'm sure they would be too, some raging homo disaproves, can see the headlines now.

Is that you, Roo?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, poptart said:

Nope, laying off the vape as of now, and its legal here ^_^.  Funny, still can't get willie to come back, i miss him.  He ever runs for prez i'm so voting for him, he'll solve all our problems. Get all the world leaders together and even if it's for like 20 minutes we'll have world peace, and a dorrito shortage lol.

So, here's my understanding, with marriage you get access to different insurance as well as survivor benefits if the spouse dies, took civil unions/marriage rights for the lgbtq community to finally have the same benefits of straight people.  Don'g get me wrong, the people who want to force churches to allow lgbtq people to marry within their holy halls are jerks, but when it bleeds into the secular realm that's where I draw the line, even Rome laid off.  Especially when it involves financial benefits I say if violent protesting/rioting is what it takes as an oppressed minority and you have nothing to lose?  Go for it.  All for religious liberty, but when it oppresses my choice of who I marry I say your rights end where mine begin, time to get ugly and if need be cruel.  That's the only thing that works on a bully sometimes.

Where the supporters arguing against gay marriage in a church or just in general in public life?

Survivor benefits are just a part of it. The bigger issue was the right to marry the person you love.  It is about standing up for your civil rights.  It is about being treated equally under the law just like every other American.  Just because you are gay doesn't mean you give up your rights.  

The reason gays wanted to legally marry is all the same reason anyone wants to legally marry rather than just live together.  I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for so many members of the church.  No religion has the right to take away someone's civil rights any more than anyone has the right to force churches to marry someone they don't want to.  The church would scream like a stuck pig if the government forced them to marry gays.  Yet the reverse, mounting a substantial attack on someone else'scivil rights was not a problem. Yes the gay community and those that support their civil rights were furious with the church.  They still are.

[california boy]

here

What would you do?

Just what would you do if a group, say the Catholic Church decided that Mormons should no longer have the right to marry. Would you say that you have every right to marry?  That the constitution specifically states that Mormons should not be treated differently than any other citizen?  That you can't target Mormons just. because they are Mormon. That the Catholic Church does not have the right to decide who can marry and who can't? That they may disagree with your right to marry, but they are crossing a huge line to think they can decide what citizens can marry and what ones can't.

And what if the Catholic Church sent letters to every member of their congregation to give as much time and money to this campaign as they possibly can. What if church leaders broadcasted to each of their churches how the members were suppose to handle this campaign, what to say and how to attack the "Mormon issue".  What if Catholics were standing on corners in your streets, knocking on doors in your neighborhoods, passing out flyers in your communities telling people that it was their moral right to prevent Mormons from marrying.

And what if the Catholic Church took those millions of dollars they collected and broadcasted lies and misrepresentations of what would happen if the Mormons were allowed to continue to marry.  Things like, if we allow Mormons to continue to marry, they will start teachings kintergarders that it is ok to be Mormon. 

Let's say the Catholic Church was successful in it's effort to write a new constitutional amendment preventing Mormons from marrying. Would you sit back the next day. and say "Oh well, I guess that is that". Or would you get out your paint brush, make signs and protest this incredible injustice perpetuated by the Catholic Church.  Would you fight this vote with everything you had including all the way up to the Supreme Court.  Shame on the Catholic Church for ever thinking they had the right to pour millions and marshal thousands to take away the civil rights of Mormons just because they thought Mormons are a small minority that can't stand up for themselves and fight back.

In a perverse way Prop 8 galvanized the gay marriage movement not only in the United States, but world wide.  It did more to sway the public on how wrong this issue is than any other act.  For months after the passing of Prop 8, TV commentators had both groups on programs to shed sunlight on this issue.  People saw the injustice of what the Mormon Church had done.  It convinced people who previously didn't think it was their fight to make it their fight.  By the time Prop 8 was finally ruled upon, even many Mormons who were standing on those corners realized the wrong the church had committed. And the church has paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for it's shameful roll in fighting to take away a minorities civil rights. What did they expect to happen?

 

[Calm]

You do realize, cb, that pop tart, is not LDS?

[california boy]

What difference does that make?  Her questions are valid whether she is Mormon or not.  So are my questions.  The pushing of this proposition has had a profound effect on the church and how it is viewed by outsiders.  

I was talking to my daughter a couple of weeks ago.  She grew up in California, but now lives in Utah.  I asked her what she missed the most about living in California.  She said the diversity.  It is something that I really value as well.  I followed up her comment about how great it is to live in a place where it doesn't matter what race you are, what religion you are, and who you marry.  She said, well almost.  I asked her what she meant.  She said that when people find out she is Mormon, they immediately assume that she hates gays and thinks they don't deserve to be treated equally.  She has to convince them that she is not that kind of Mormon, and that not all Mormons feel the same way as the church.  The center of those assumptions is Prop 8.  Some also know that the church will not baptize children of gay parents.  (they don't often know that baptism can come after they are 18 and if they disavow their parent's choice to marry.)  That certainly reinforces the belief that church attitudes towards gays has not changed.  

And I guess that is all fine.  The church can certainly teach what it wants to teach.  I am just surprised when members don't like the consequences of those teachings and feel like they are the victims when people assume they share those same beliefs as the church they belong to.

Edited April 24, 2018 by california boy

[Marginal Gains]

Why wasn’t the Q12 and FP bold and proud of it’s activity during Prop 8? Why all the effort to hide the money trail and to try and portray no direct involvement or inducement of members? Why the misdirection and subterfuge?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormongate----the-churchs_b_163016.html

Edited April 24, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[poptart]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What difference does that make?  Her questions are valid whether she is Mormon or not.  So are my questions.  The pushing of this proposition has had a profound effect on the church and how it is viewed by outsiders.  

I was talking to my daughter a couple of weeks ago.  She grew up in California, but now lives in Utah.  I asked her what she missed the most about living in California.  She said the diversity.  It is something that I really value as well.  I followed up her comment about how great it is to live in a place where it doesn't matter what race you are, what religion you are, and who you marry.  She said, well almost.  I asked her what she meant.  She said that when people find out she is Mormon, they immediately assume that she hates gays and thinks they don't deserve to be treated equally.  She has to convince them that she is not that kind of Mormon, and that not all Mormons feel the same way as the church.  The center of those assumptions is Prop 8.  Some also know that the church will not baptize children of gay parents.  (they don't often know that baptism can come after they are 18 and if they disavow their parent's choice to marry.)  That certainly reinforces the belief that church attitudes towards gays has not changed.  

And I guess that is all fine.  The church can certainly teach what it wants to teach.  I am just surprised when members don't like the consequences of those teachings and feel like they are the victims when people assume they share those same beliefs as the church they belong to.

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

here

What would you do?

Just what would you do if a group, say the Catholic Church decided that Mormons should no longer have the right to marry. Would you say that you have every right to marry?  That the constitution specifically states that Mormons should not be treated differently than any other citizen?  That you can't target Mormons just. because they are Mormon. That the Catholic Church does not have the right to decide who can marry and who can't? That they may disagree with your right to marry, but they are crossing a huge line to think they can decide what citizens can marry and what ones can't.

And what if the Catholic Church sent letters to every member of their congregation to give as much time and money to this campaign as they possibly can. What if church leaders broadcasted to each of their churches how the members were suppose to handle this campaign, what to say and how to attack the "Mormon issue".  What if Catholics were standing on corners in your streets, knocking on doors in your neighborhoods, passing out flyers in your communities telling people that it was their moral right to prevent Mormons from marrying.

And what if the Catholic Church took those millions of dollars they collected and broadcasted lies and misrepresentations of what would happen if the Mormons were allowed to continue to marry.  Things like, if we allow Mormons to continue to marry, they will start teachings kintergarders that it is ok to be Mormon. 

Let's say the Catholic Church was successful in it's effort to write a new constitutional amendment preventing Mormons from marrying. Would you sit back the next day. and say "Oh well, I guess that is that". Or would you get out your paint brush, make signs and protest this incredible injustice perpetuated by the Catholic Church.  Would you fight this vote with everything you had including all the way up to the Supreme Court.  Shame on the Catholic Church for ever thinking they had the right to pour millions and marshal thousands to take away the civil rights of Mormons just because they thought Mormons are a small minority that can't stand up for themselves and fight back.

In a perverse way Prop 8 galvanized the gay marriage movement not only in the United States, but world wide.  It did more to sway the public on how wrong this issue is than any other act.  For months after the passing of Prop 8, TV commentators had both groups on programs to shed sunlight on this issue.  People saw the injustice of what the Mormon Church had done.  It convinced people who previously didn't think it was their fight to make it their fight.  By the time Prop 8 was finally ruled upon, even many Mormons who were standing on those corners realized the wrong the church had committed. And the church has paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for it's shameful roll in fighting to take away a minorities civil rights. What did they expect to happen?

 

What would make me really nervous if I was true blue LDS, the kind of backlash you see nowadays.  Let's see what happens in someplace like SLC that is exploding population wise and they do something that ends in an antifa tier riot.  I had friends who went to a few in portland, that protests from 2008 were nothing compared to that.  Wait till you have to have a massive police presence and people start getting killed.  That's what gets me more than anything, the lack of sense.  Sure, i get the religious beliefs, but when you use your religion to take away someones right to marry another adult and the legal benefits it entails you run the risk of a very violent protest.  That, and as someone with family in law enforcment I wonder how many LDS faithful will be out there with law enforcment, shields in hands defending their temples or will they just hide and complain like everyone else while our finest put their lives on the line.  Better yet, if it just gets out of hand and they end up with boots on the ground.  Sounds far fetched, considering the current events, well....

Either way the likes of me will be sitting back and watching from afar.  For me it's simple, don't be a jerk.  When your religion pushes you in a direction like that, time to take a good long hard look at not only the religion but more importantly it's followers.

 

I somehow doubt the LDS will stand up to an antifa tier protest like say the alt right did at berkley, considering just how angry and marginalized people are nowadays, it's protests like this I think we have to look forward too.  Funny, oldest brother went to Berkley waaaay back in the day, funny how times change...

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by poptart

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, poptart said:

i'm sure they would be too, some raging homo disaproves, can see the headlines now.

Are you a rager? You never came across that way.

[stemelbow]

The whole prop 8 episode for the Church was an embarrassing one.  They were squarely defeated in the end, and all it did was expose the bigotry of the church leaders, and subsequently many members who followed without thought.  I think most members want to be kinder and more thoughtful to others, though.  I think most members want to at least come off as loving and supportive rather than upset while trying to keep people down.  BUt a lot of members still see the defeat of the Church on this as a clear sign of the devil's attempted takeover in the world.  I'm sure we'll see upset members for the next generation or so, or until the leaders turnover enough to defeat the attitude of bigotry that remains from the older generations and generations past.  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The whole prop 8 episode for the Church was an embarrassing one.  They were squarely defeated in the end, and all it did was expose the bigotry of the church leaders, and subsequently many members who followed without thought.  I think most members want to be kinder and more thoughtful to others, though.  I think most members want to at least come off as loving and supportive rather than upset while trying to keep people down.  BUt a lot of members still see the defeat of the Church on this as a clear sign of the devil's attempted takeover in the world.  I'm sure we'll see upset members for the next generation or so, or until the leaders turnover enough to defeat the attitude of bigotry that remains from the older generations and generations past.  

Or we could just believe we were right but we lost and move on. Did the end of Prohibition where we also lost need this same multi-generation recovery time?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

here

What would you do?

Just what would you do if a group, say the Catholic Church decided that Mormons should no longer have the right to marry. Would you say that you have every right to marry?  That the constitution specifically states that Mormons should not be treated differently than any other citizen?  That you can't target Mormons just. because they are Mormon. That the Catholic Church does not have the right to decide who can marry and who can't? That they may disagree with your right to marry, but they are crossing a huge line to think they can decide what citizens can marry and what ones can't.

And what if the Catholic Church sent letters to every member of their congregation to give as much time and money to this campaign as they possibly can. What if church leaders broadcasted to each of their churches how the members were suppose to handle this campaign, what to say and how to attack the "Mormon issue".  What if Catholics were standing on corners in your streets, knocking on doors in your neighborhoods, passing out flyers in your communities telling people that it was their moral right to prevent Mormons from marrying.

And what if the Catholic Church took those millions of dollars they collected and broadcasted lies and misrepresentations of what would happen if the Mormons were allowed to continue to marry.  Things like, if we allow Mormons to continue to marry, they will start teachings kintergarders that it is ok to be Mormon. 

Let's say the Catholic Church was successful in it's effort to write a new constitutional amendment preventing Mormons from marrying. Would you sit back the next day. and say "Oh well, I guess that is that". Or would you get out your paint brush, make signs and protest this incredible injustice perpetuated by the Catholic Church.  Would you fight this vote with everything you had including all the way up to the Supreme Court.  Shame on the Catholic Church for ever thinking they had the right to pour millions and marshal thousands to take away the civil rights of Mormons just because they thought Mormons are a small minority that can't stand up for themselves and fight back.

In a perverse way Prop 8 galvanized the gay marriage movement not only in the United States, but world wide.  It did more to sway the public on how wrong this issue is than any other act.  For months after the passing of Prop 8, TV commentators had both groups on programs to shed sunlight on this issue.  People saw the injustice of what the Mormon Church had done.  It convinced people who previously didn't think it was their fight to make it their fight.  By the time Prop 8 was finally ruled upon, even many Mormons who were standing on those corners realized the wrong the church had committed. And the church has paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for it's shameful roll in fighting to take away a minorities civil rights. What did they expect to happen?

 

If the Catholics did that we would probably flee into the wilderness again.

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The whole prop 8 episode for the Church was an embarrassing one.  They were squarely defeated in the end, and all it did was expose the bigotry of the church leaders, and subsequently many members who followed without thought.  I think most members want to be kinder and more thoughtful to others, though.  I think most members want to at least come off as loving and supportive rather than upset while trying to keep people down.  BUt a lot of members still see the defeat of the Church on this as a clear sign of the devil's attempted takeover in the world.  I'm sure we'll see upset members for the next generation or so, or until the leaders turnover enough to defeat the attitude of bigotry that remains from the older generations and generations past.  

Why can’t I “like” your posts?

Fortunately for those distressed members, Bednar has made it clear there are no homosexuals in the Church. Which makes you wonder why they got involved in something to do with a group of people not represented within the Church membership in the first place...

[rpn]

14 hours ago, poptart said:

Old topic, want an honest answer from someone.  Just how much support did this have from members?  I remember seeing the old video clips of the protests outside of the LA temple that i'm honestly suprised didn't turn into riots, what was the deal?  Most married couples I know did it mostly for survivor benefits, insurance and what not.  Why did the LDS faithful even care?  Was it really religious bigotry?

Church members were asked to actively participate and mostly did.   Church leadership felt like changing the definition of marriage would weaken the institution of marriages as God has set them up.  (And no doubt thought that if CA would vote to preserve God's version, then perhaps that would influence the entire nation.)    Church leaders believed that those views were shared by many others, and lots of churches urged their members to support Prop 8 too  (mormons are seen as the instigators because its organizational set up made it easier for others simply to join lds efforts).   Prop 8 was enacted into law by the majority of Californians (with black voters being the biggest group in support), and was then thrown out by a single judge. 

The Church has not been opposed to survivor benefits, insurance, next of kin designations, etc.: Utah is one of the few states that preserve equal rights to employment and housing for gay people.     It HAS felt that God wants His definition of marriage involving a mother and a father and children (which we know is the first unit of eternal governance) preserved in the interest of mankind.  

[Marginal Gains]

8 minutes ago, rpn said:

Church members were asked to actively participate and mostly did.   Church leadership felt like changing the definition of marriage would weaken the institution of marriages as God has set them up.  (And no doubt thought that if CA would vote to preserve God's version, then perhaps that would influence the entire nation.)    Church leaders believed that those views were shared by many others, and lots of churches urged their members to support Prop 8 too  (mormons are seen as the instigators because its organizational set up made it easier for others simply to join lds efforts).   Prop 8 was enacted into law by the majority of Californians (with black voters being the biggest group in support), and was then thrown out by a single judge. 

The Church has not been opposed to survivor benefits, insurance, next of kin designations, etc.: Utah is one of the few states that preserve equal rights to employment and housing for gay people.     It HAS felt that God wants His definition of marriage involving a mother and a father and children (which we know is the first unit of eternal governance) preserved in the interest of mankind.  

What is “God’s version”? Plural wives, plural husbands, plural wives so long as only one is alive, plural husbands so long as they’re all dead but you’ll have to pick one only in the eternity....etc. What exactly is Mormonism’s version of God’s version of marriage?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Daniel2]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is quite possible to oppose same-sex marriage on principled grounds.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Assuming we're speaking of recognition in the United States of America, what do you mean by "opposing same-sex marriage" in the above context?

Do you mean: a) you think that it's "quite possible" to "oppose religiously-recognized same-sex marriage" on religious principles (grounds)? (as in, hold the understanding that The Plan of Salvation cannot be adjusted to include marriages between same-sex couples)?

Or do you mean: b) you think that it's "quite possible" to "oppose civilly/legally-recognized same-sex marriage" on civil and/or religious principles (grounds)? (as in, hold that the sum of our laws and/or Constitution shouldn't legally recognize the marriages of same-sex couples)?

Or do you: c) think it's "quite possible" to "oppose both religiously-recognized and civilly-recognized same-sex marriage" on "principled grounds"?

If either of the latter two is the answer, could you explain the civilly-based principles upon which you base your belief that it's possible to oppose civil-recognition of same-sex marriages, aside from either a) the religious freedom to do so, or b) freedom of speech (if any, other than those two)?

I'm just curious if, aside from religious-based and/or speech-based principles, you feel there's are other compelling civilly-based principles upon it's quite possible to oppose the civil recognition of marriages between same-sex couples.

For the record and likely without any surprise to most here, I think it's entirely possible for anyone or any Faith(s) to oppose religious recognition or divine allowance (according to any individuals' or Faiths' beliefs in the nature of God) of or for religious-based marriage between same-sex couples.  But I haven't seen any legally-compelling civil grounds/principles upon which to base opposition to civil-recognition of marriage between same-sex couples.

Daniel

Edited April 24, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Or we could just believe we were right but we lost and move on. Did the end of Prohibition where we also lost need this same multi-generation recovery time?

I'd love to see ongoing polling of devout members still active in the pews every few years to see how many continue to believe that both Church leadership's calls to action and their own actions in support of the passage of Prop 8 "were right."

As far as Prohibition was concerned, even as a life-long and fiercely devout Latter-day Saint with a firm belief that the consumption of alcohol violates God's will growing up for my first 30 years of life, I never believed that the Prohibition movement "was right," from a legal or civil perspective.  I wonder how many active LDS members feel that the Prohibition movement "was right"....?