The Mormon Proposition

by Sheldon Rampton — November 19, 2008 - 11:51pm
Share/Save Share this

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as the LDS or Mormon Church) is facing a public backlash following its heavy-handed support of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages in California, notes progressive PR pro Michael Fox. "For many years," he notes, "the LDS Church has been an active force in the anti-gay movement, most notably in regard to its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America, but these activities have mostly been below the media radar and opposition has been directed at the Scouts, not the LDS Church itself. ... Now that will change." A leaked internal memo shows how top church leaders egged on rank-and-file Mormons to donate more than $20 million to support Proposition 8, while members in Utah made political phone calls to Californians on behalf of the measure. In response, Fox says, "Gay and lesbian groups and their allies will challenge the Mormons everywhere, no doubt tapping into pre-existing anti-Mormon prejudice. ... And the Prop 8 boycott, if sustained, can have a serious impact on businesses owned by Mormons, such as the Marriott hotel chain, on the careers of LDS members, and even on the economy of the State of Utah."

Main Source: 
Salon.com, November 18, 2008

Comments

The Mormon Church

Submitted by Church Construction (not verified) on March 25, 2011 - 9:22am.

Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me. The Mormon Church has been able to wage this war in secret. Not until the California Fair Political Practices Commission launched an investigation into the Mormon's involvement in Proposition 8, did the secrets of the Mormon effort become a matter of record. Through never-before seen documents, recordings & insider-interviews, 8: THE MORMON PROPOSITION, exposes the efforts of the Mormon Church and its members to halt nearly every piece of LGBT legislation on the desks of lawmakers from Hawaii to New York. 8:
Thanks for sharing nice video./ Church Construction

Simple Solution

Submitted by Karen B (not verified) on November 16, 2009 - 1:43pm.

Lets make this easy. Federal and or state laws for CIVIL UNION should guarantee legal rights to all couples. Establishing the committment of the relationship, and ensuring that people can include their "partner" in insurance, wills, inheritance, etc., etc., The Civil Union is required as the legal/foundational step for all, whereas "marriage" can be the term used for spiritual joining of a couple, not required for legal purposes. Let each church have choice and freedom to establish standards for marriage in their church according to their doctrine. Some will, some won't go for it. But at least this separates church and state and legal vs. doctrinal. Mormons are supposed to believe in free agency and choice and to let others worship where, when, and how they please. So be it. If Mormons want to attact people to the Church, their standards are plain to see, and for people to choose. This should not be a political battle. The Church is harming the good image they have worked years to create by entering into the political arena.

good name

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on January 26, 2010 - 2:25am.

I don't think the mormon church cares what people think of the name. Christ himself didn't care. He did what his father comanded and was no respector of persons. Ceasar wasn't any more worthy than the adultress, yet she sought forgiveness for her actions. Show me where homosexuality has benefited a society or people as a whole? Nobody can, because it has never done such. It has destroyed them. I don't want to destroy mine anymore than it already is.

Come come, ye saints...

Submitted by Mutternich on April 3, 2009 - 9:35am.

Time to start manning the phone banks and gathering signatures again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/04iowa.html?hp

Iowa Court Says Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

It's getting closer to Utah.

Boycott Info

Submitted by mwbsf on November 25, 2008 - 4:19pm.

A great site to go to for potential boycott targets is here: http://www.utahbusiness.com/ Pick your favorite!

TAX THE CHURCHES - YOU PLAY POLITICS YOU PAY TAXES!!!!

anti-Mormon propaganda

Submitted by friuliveneto on November 20, 2008 - 4:36pm.

I read the "about us" for the Center for Media and Democracy after having read the comments here on the "Mormon Proposition" and think your goal of "investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda" ought to start with your own machinery. You claim that Mormon participation in the electoral process was "heavy handed." How is the Mormon Church opposing something it considers to be hostile to its teachings, "heavy handed?" Is free speech only theoretical?

When the Mormon Church is sued for millions of dollars because homosexual Scout leaders abused Scouts, isn't it prudent to make sure such behavior isn't facilitated further? Is it "anti-gay" to avoid future lawsuits?

The reference to a "leaked internal memo" sounds nefarious except for the fact that the memo was read in every LDS congregation in America and posted on its official web site.

The commercial you claim "highlights the Mormon role" in promoting Proposition 8 is absolutely dishonest. It portrays Mormon missionaries as invading the home of a lesbian couple, searching their home and destroying property--actions that factually mirror the fascist actions of anti-Mormon protesters who have invaded churches and destroyed property after having lost a legal *democratic* election.

Just what part of democracy are you supporting by posting such blatantly dishonest and anti-democratic propaganda?

Speaking of heavyhandedness...

Submitted by Mutternich on November 20, 2008 - 9:19pm.

When the Mormon Church is sued for millions of dollars because homosexual Scout leaders abused Scouts, isn't it prudent to make sure such behavior isn't facilitated further? Is it "anti-gay" to avoid future lawsuits?

Tarring all homosexuals with the brush of pedophilia -- I'd call that pretty heavy handed.

I think I know what the Mormon leadership's problem is: they look around at, for example, the Episcopal church, and they see a bishop who's openly gay and a chief bishop who's a woman and the Episcopal church in schism because of it, and they imagine what could happen to their own rigid, male-privileged, authoritarian rule if tolerance spread too far.

You'd think in view of their own harrowing history Mormons would have learned to respect the rights of others to liberty and pursuit of happiness in a pluralistic, all-embracing society, but apparently not. The commercial makes that point aptly, IMO.

Male privileged culture???

Submitted by Dan in Missouri (not verified) on October 20, 2009 - 8:05pm.

Whatever the discussion, this will end up benefitting the Mormon church. Cultures like the Mormon culture that have not moved much over time provide an image of stability to people who are tired or afraid of the path of perpetual self focus and endulgence.

Don't try to convince me that unfetterd sex has no consequences. I have seen it tear my fathers life apart. I am not perfect, but I have one wife, and 4 great kids. We've been married 13 years. Would you call my home male dominated??? Am I a threat to the Gay agenda...

Yes, male privileged.

Submitted by Mutternich on October 23, 2009 - 10:38am.

"Don't try to convince me that unfetterd sex has no consequences."

I'm not. In fact, if I'm right in understanding your comments as opposing same-sex marriage, I find it strange that you'd deny your fellow citizens the same legal status you take for granted when they step up to accept the "fetters" of fidelity, love, and responsibility.

Whose belief, whose throat?

Submitted by Mutternich on November 20, 2008 - 12:58pm.

Those opposed to same-sex marriage (or even civil unions) claim its proponents are shoving their beliefs down their throats, while supporters say opponents are shoving their beliefs down theirs. So there appears to be a gaping, unmet need for legal definitions that distinguish with unequivocal epistemological rigor between beliefs and throats.

In the meantime, if the state has a God-given mandate to uphold the sanctity of one sacrament, to wit matrimony, it must surely have no lesser duty to uphold the sanctity of all sacraments. The most urgent case is that of baptism. Traditionally, baptism has always been performed on the living, but now it appears that the Mormon church is making a mockery of traditional baptism by ghoulishly "baptizing" dead people:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/baptism/

The Mormons say that they are not forcing their baptism on anyone, since "...each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it. There is nothing in Mormonism that states that the person who is being baptized by proxy must accept this ordinance; he or she is simply given the opportunity to choose."

Well, each party to a same-sex marriage is given the opportunity to choose as well, but that does not make same-sex marriage any more acceptable to the Mormon church. So simple logic dictates that if same-sex marriage violates and degrades the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, then "baptism" of the dead, even with the consent of the deceased soul, violates and degrades the sanctity of traditional and holy baptism of the living. The state must not permit this travesty to continue, or it will surely lead to terrible consequences for all of society!