Mormonism and politics

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Politics

Summary: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral when it comes to partisan politics. However, on certain political issues of moral consequence and affecting the Church, the Church will take official positions.

The Church has taken a position on a number of controversial social issues. These include abortion, same-sex marraige, the MX Missile Silos, and immigration. The articles below explore the criticisms of the Church's positions and provide responses to those criticisms.

---

Did early Mormon missionaries to England take advantage of "intolerable social and economic conditions" in order to gain converts?

Significant financial hardships were required even to immigrate: Immigration was also not a matter of instant financial benefits

This claim was originally made by critic Fawn Brodie in her book No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith . Brodie's claim oversimplifies a great deal. Charles Dickens described Latter-day Saint immigrants as "the pick and flower of England." Immigration was also not a matter of instant financial benefits.

Some immigrants doubtless were attracted by opportunities in America. But, significant financial hardships were required even to immigrate. Some Latter-day Saints (e.g., John Benbow) left considerable property and very comfortable circumstances in England. As is typical, Brodie oversimplifies a complex issue, and it is not surprising that the effect is to make church missionaries look exploitative. She apparently wishes to down play the spiritual attraction of the message preached by Latter-day Saint missionaries.

For example, on the ship Amazon which sailed in 1863

"of prime importance in determining when a family would emigrate was the matter of finances. In spite of great faith, many would-be emigrants found it difficult to save enough money to pay for their passage and other expenses. Charles and Eliza West joined the Church in 1849 and began in 1853 to put money into the individual emigrating accounts kept by local Church leaders. But the expenses of a growing family made saving difficult....Half the married adults aboard the Amazon had been Latter-day Saints for thirteen years or more. Even those with a larger income found it difficult to save for emigration. But single adults, without the expense of a family, generally emigrated three to four years sooner after baptism than married adults. Though some of the Amazon passengers were recent converts, eighty-five percent of the adults had been members more than five years before they emigrated....Some husbands and fathers of Amazon passengers had emigrated earlier, hoping to establish a home in Utah and earn enough to pay for their families’ emigration. This was not an uncommon practice among emigrants. On the other hand, some wives—even expectant mothers—and children aboard the Amazon were leaving their husbands and fathers behind; these breadwinners hoped to join their families the next year after earning the rest of the emigration money and closing out their financial affairs."

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 264. ( Index of claims ) Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 37 (citing Brodie).

Question: Why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) take a stance on certain political issues?

The Church will become involved in a political matter if it is deemed to have a moral consequence

The following video is published by Church Newsroom.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Church leaders encourage members to be active in politics and to exercise their right to vote. The Church does not, however, specify how members should vote or which political party they ought to belong to. Occasionally, however, the First Presidency issues a letter which is read over the pulpit urging members to act upon some political matter. Why does the Church choose to do this? President Gordon B. Hinckley answers this question:

We try to follow a very strict course in political matters. We observe the principle of the separation of church and state. We do concern ourselves with matters which we consider of moral consequence and things which might directly affect the Church or our fellow churches. We try to work unitedly with other people of other faiths in a constructive way. We hope we can use our influence for the maintenance and cultivation of the good environment in which we live as a people in these communities.

The Church will become involved in a political matter if it is deemed to have a moral consequence. President Hinckley reiterated the same point while speaking at a conference in Japan:

We believe in the separation of Church and state. The Church does not endorse any political party or any political candidate, nor does it permit the use of its buildings and facilities for political purposes. We believe that the Church should remain out of politics unless there is a moral question at issue. In the case of a moral issue we would expect to speak out. But, in the matter of everyday political considerations, we try to remain aloof from those as a Church, while at the same time urging our members, as citizens, to exercise their political franchise as individuals. We believe, likewise, that it is in the interest of good government to permit freedom of worship, freedom of religion. Our official statement says, "We believe in worshiping God according to the dictates of conscience, and we allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Upon which issues might the Church take a stand? President Hinckley specifically mentioned issues involving alcohol, gambling and "thing[s] of that kind." On June 30, 2008 the First Presidency under President Thomas S. Monson issued a letter urging Church members living in California to "...do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman." (See: Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8)

Question: Why did Mormon leaders oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States?

The Church did not oppose equal rights for women. However, it was opposed to the potential consequences of the brief, vaguely worded ERA

It's sometimes mistakenly assumed that because the Church opposed a proposed amendment to the United States constitution known as the Equal Rights Amendment, the Church must have also opposed equal rights for women. As explicitly stated by Church leaders, the Church did not oppose equal rights for women. However, it was opposed to the potential consequences of the brief, vaguely worded ERA. The concern was that the amendment would unintentionally have a negative impact on women's rights and families. Furthermore, the Church felt the Constitution already prohibited gender discrimination, making the ERA an unnecessary risk.

What is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was proposed as an amendment to the constitution of the United States. It was first introduced in 1923 and rode the tides of American politics until it failed to be ratified by the required minimum number of states in 1982. It has never been enacted.

The proposed amendment read, in its entirety:

• Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

• Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

• Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Church’s Position on the ERA

In 1976, during the strongest, most vocal push to ratify the ERA, the Church made an uncommon move and took an official position on a political issue. The First Presidency—then comprised of Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney—issued a statement opposing the ERA. It went on to urge American Church members to work as citizens to defeat the proposed legislation.

The First Presidency’s statement reads, in part:

There have been injustices to women before the law and in society generally. These we deplore. There are additional rights to which women are entitled. However, we firmly believe that the Equal Rights Amendment is not the answer.

Even with an endorsement from the First Presidency, no Church funds were used to campaign against the ERA.

Mistaking Opposition to the ERA for Opposition to Gender Equality

The Church was not the only organization in America to oppose the ERA. Religious groups sponsored by Catholic and other Christian and Jewish faiths also opposed it. Secular organizations, most notably Phyllis Schlafly’s STOP ERA, campaigned against it as well. The Republican Party wavered in its support for the amendment and still managed to win the 1980 election. Clearly, the American populous – inside and outside the Church—was not without reservations when it came to the ERA. However, this does not mean the majority of the nation was against women’s rights simply because it was unsatisfied with the ERA. A popular slogan of the day was “Equal Rights, Yes. ERA, No!”

Critics of the Church, both in the twentieth century and today, often equate the Church’s opposition to the ERA to opposition to equal rights for women. This misconception continues despite clear, unequivocal statements from the Church to the contrary.

Long before the ERA became well-known, leaders of the Church were already speaking of women’s rights. In 1942, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostle, John A. Widtsoe said:

In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The gospel … was devised by the Lord for men and women alike…The privileges and requirements of the gospel are fundamentally alike for men and women. The Lord loves His daughters as well as He loves His sons… This makes individuals of man and woman—individuals with the right of free agency, with the power of individual decision, with individual opportunity for everlasting joy… There can be no question in the Church of man’s rights versus woman’s rights.

Opposition to the Vague Language

The ERA was written in very brief and general terms. Those concerned about the wording feared the amendment was overly vague and too vulnerable to unintended consequences.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, addressed this in 1977:

I recognize that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment may be well intentioned in their desire to improve the status of women. We need to be very alert as to what the amendment would do besides what is intended. It is so easy to set about to solve a problem and end up creating yet a greater one.

Rex E. Lee, (a legal scholar, an Assistant Attorney General in the US Department of Justice, and the person who would soon become the 37th Solicitor General of the United States) warned:

By its nature, [the ERA] will either do too little or too much…The highly vague language of the ERA has the potential to do far more than simply add one additional suspect classification (sex) to existing equal protection doctrine. How much more? I really don’t know. And that is the greatest problem.”

Several states passed legislation with similar wording to the ERA and unintended consequences did indeed arise. In Maryland and Pennsylvania women were deprived by the courts of spousal and child support as direct results of ERA-type state laws. In one case, a man succeeded in proving in court that he could no longer be prevailed upon to pay his wife’s medical expenses. Cases like these bolstered the notion that the ERA was flawed and risky.

Opposition on the Basis of Redundancy

Opponents of the ERA pointed out that the legal principle of the equality of all citizens was already guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the United States’ constitution which reads,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, all US citizens—regardless of any individual characteristics including gender – are entitled to “equal protection” under the law. When the fourteenth amendment was applied in courts in matters of gender discrimination, such discrimination was rejected as unconstitutional.

This would have been the interpretation Boyd K. Packer envisioned when he said of gender discrimination:

Existing laws, if properly enforced, could effect the corrections necessary. Even some proponents of ERA have admitted that a Constitutional amendment is not really needed to achieve the desired legal reforms. They argue, however, that its adoption represents some kind of a symbolic gesture, some overcorrection of a long neglected cause…I am for the equitable enforcement of existing laws. There are sufficient of them to protect the rights of women and of children and of men. Or to enact judiciously and wisely any needed legislation to correct particular circumstances.”

The special Ensign publication on the ERA provides “a partial list” detailing eight acts which make gender discrimination illegal in the United States. According to the Ensign, “existing laws…prohibit discrimination, on the grounds of sex, in virtually all areas of American life—education, employment, credit eligibility, housing, public accommodation.”

Rex E. Lee said:

In all the debates over ERA in which I have participated, I have yet to hear anyone suggest a single discriminatory law, which a majority of Americans would want repealed, that would not already be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Opposition on the Basis of Democracy

The ERA was seen by many as an attempt to wrest political power away from elected local authorities and put it in the hands of unelected federal judges and bureaucrats. As proponents of democracy – what the Book of Mormon calls “the voice of the people” Alma 29:26—Church leaders were troubled at the prospect of this kind of shift in power.

Opposition on the Basis on Gender Homogeneity

Both inside and outside the Church, opponents to the ERA expressed concerns that the amendment would erase important distinctions between men and women. In the words of Boyd K. Packer:

Among the great dangers in the [ERA] is the fact that it would deprive lawmakers and government officials alike of the right by legal means to honor the vital differences in the roles of men and women.

The concern was that a codified homogenization of genders would limit women’s power to choose to fulfill traditional roles. Without certain “necessary protections and exemptions” it was feared that women would be forced into difficult positions through:

• being made subject to compulsory military service even if they were raising small children
• lapses in court orders for child and spousal support payments
• weakening of sexual assault prosecutions
• loss of existing spousal benefits such as medical insurance
• changes to the tax system that might make it more difficult financially for people to live as married couples.

All these potential effects of the ERA were seen as damaging to family life in America. Boyd K. Packer said:

We [the Church] analyze the effect of every influence that comes along, as it may ultimately change by way of strengthening, or threaten by way of weakening, the family. We have the lingering, ominous suspicion that the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have paid little, if any, attention to the family at all.

The ERA and Church Discipline

The special ERA section of the Ensign states:

Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the [ERA]. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work.

It’s likely that attention was drawn to this question due to the case of Sonia Johnson, an ERA activist who was excommunicated. Her excommunication came after she gave a speech, titled "Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church." She spoke several more times on the topic, always harshly criticizing the Church and its leaders. Johnson often cites her stance on ERA to be the reason for her excommunication, although there is no evidence besides her claims that this is actually the case. The reasons for an individual's excommunication are rarely publicly released by the Church. However, Johnson and those close to her claimed that she was excommunicated for apostasy. No other individual has ever claimed to have been excommunicated for their stance on the ERA, although a number of other members did publicly disagree with Church leaders on the issue.

Johnson's later remarks in Chapter 5 of her book, Going Out Of Our Minds: The Metaphysics Of Liberation also make it clear that there were other issues at work, though in keeping with the Church's practice of disciplinary council confidentiality, they were not revealed by the Church, and have only become public knowledge because of Johnson's decision to speak about them publicly.

America without the ERA

Of course, it’s impossible to know how the United States might have developed differently if the ERA had been ratified in 1982. Some of the effects opponents of the ERA were trying to avoid—such as the proliferation of abortion and same-sex marriages—eventually became parts of American society anyway. Maybe the ERA would have brought on these changes sooner – or maybe not. It’s impossible to know.

Since 1982, the Fourteenth Amendment has continued to uphold the principle of gender equality before the law. Still, gender discrimination continues to exist. It’s no longer overt or common in institutional settings but it endures in the everyday lives of American women. It continues to be a disgusting though pervasive and enduring fact of life. It doesn’t seem realistic that any act of government could have undone millennia of prejudice and abuse. As the special section of the Ensign explained back in the days of the ERA:

The ERA does not automatically guarantee equal rights…the ERA would not affect many inequities that result from attitudes and customs. It would prohibit only governmental discrimination.

Gender inequalities are much more complex and insidious than any law has the power to lob off in a single stroke. To say otherwise is to oversimplify and trivialize women’s struggles for equality. These facts highlight the ERA’s status as a symbolic gesture – an attempt to promote awareness and attitudinal changes about gender equality more than an attempt to effect real change. It was the position of the Church that such a move was not worth the risk of inadvertently losing rights women already enjoyed.

In the company of many other organizations, the Church opposed the ERA. However, it explicitly did not oppose the principle of equal rights for women and men

In the company of many other organizations, the Church opposed the ERA. However, it explicitly did not oppose the principle of equal rights for women and men. The ERA was brief and vague and considered too vulnerable to unintended, unfortunate interpretations. It was deemed unnecessary since equal gender rights were already protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It was feared the ERA would erode democracy by moving power away from elected local officials and giving it to unelected federal courts. Another concern was that the ERA would dull the salience of important gender differences and cost women their access to child and spousal support and benefits and their exemption from compulsory military service. Despite claims made in the media of the day, the Church did not discipline members merely for disregarding the First Presidency's stance on the ERA.

Gender inequalities are much more insidious and complicated than any law has the power to lob off in a single stroke. To say otherwise is to oversimplify and trivialize women’s struggles. The ERA was largely a symbolic gesture – more an attempt to promote dialogue and attitudinal change on gender equality than to effect real change. The Church held that such a move was not worth the risk of inadvertently losing rights that women already enjoyed.

Question: How do Mormons view the issue of immigration reform in the United States?

"We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society"

On 17 March 2011, the Church's official website posted the following:

A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune highlighted the fact that the Church’s Presiding Bishop, H. David Burton, attended the signing of a comprehensive set of immigration reform bills passed by the Utah legislature. The article said: “One thing is clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has abandoned its claims to neutrality on these bills.”

This needs a clarification.

While the Church does not endorse or oppose specific political parties, candidates or platforms, it has always reserved the right to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that have significant community or moral consequences. Immigration is such an issue.

Before the 2011 Utah legislative session began, the Church announced its support for the Utah Compact. Our hope was that lawmakers would find solutions that encompassed principles important to Mormons and other people of goodwill:

• We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children, in all places, at all times.
• We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society.
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Our focus during the legislative session was to encourage laws that incorporated these principles. The Church did not dictate what kinds of bills should be proposed. Like many others on Capitol Hill, Church officials voiced their views and trusted the state’s elected officials to do their job. We consider the comprehensive package passed by lawmakers to be a responsible approach to a very complicated issue. Bishop Burton was invited, along with other community leaders, to witness the signing of a series of immigration bills by Utah Governor Gary Herbert and to show support for the diligent efforts of lawmakers in this area.

We expect that our country will continue to struggle with this complicated issue, which the federal government will have to address. Our hope is that good people everywhere will strive for principle-based solutions that balance the rule of law with the need for compassion.

Question: Why does the Church focus on religious freedom?

Religious freedom is an important part of democratic society and is important for worldwide growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

The following video is published by Church Newsroom.

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Question: What was the MX Missile System?

Introduction to Question

During the 1970s and early 80s (near the end of the Cold War), the United States Department of Defense, at the behest of the Jimmy Carter administration, wished to create a field of missile silos and MX missiles in order to counteract a growing fear of American vulnerability to Soviet nuclear attacks. The missile system would have consisted of about 200 MX missiles and housing silos, and it would have been constructed in western Utah and eastern Nevada.

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then consisting of President Spencer W. Kimball, President N. Eldon Tanner and President Marion G. Romney officially opposed the construction of the MX missiles on May 5, 1981. The statement was republished in the June 1981 edition of the Ensign, the official magazine of the Church. Support for the construction of the MX was very high among members of the Church and elsewhere up to that point. It had received bipartisan support in the United States Congress, would have provided a major boost to local economies, and would have helped quell fears of a Soviet attack. The First Presidency garnered much criticism from supporters of the MX.

The First Presidency's statement reads as follows:

We have received many inquiries concerning our feelings on the proposed basing of the MX missile system in Utah and Nevada. After assessing in great detail information recently available, and after the most careful and prayerful consideration, we make the following statement, aware of the response our words are likely to evoke from both proponents and opponents of the system.

First, by way of general observation we repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent.

Secondly, with reference to the presently proposed MX basing in Utah and Nevada, we are told that if this goes forward as planned, it will involve the construction of thousands of miles of heavy-duty roads, with the building of some 4,600 shelters in which will be hidden some 200 missiles, each armed with ten warheads. Each one of these ten nuclear warheads will have far greater destructive potential than did the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We understand that this concept is based on the provisions of a treaty which has never been ratified, and that absent such a treaty, the proposed installation could be expanded indefinitely. Its planners state that the system is strictly defensive in concept and that the chances are extremely remote that it will ever be actually employed. However, history indicates that men have seldom created armaments that eventually were not put to use.

We are most gravely concerned over the proposed concentration in a relatively restricted area of the West. Our feelings would be the same about concentration in any part of the nation, just as we assume those in any other area so selected would have similar feelings. With such concentration, one segment of the population would bear a highly disproportionate share of the burden, in lives lost and property destroyed, in case of an attack, particularly if such were to be a saturation attack.

Such concentration, we are informed, may even invite attack under a first-strike strategy on the part of an aggressor. If such occurred the result would be near annihilation of most of what we have striven to build since our pioneer forebears first came to these western valleys.

Furthermore, we are told that in the event of a first-strike attack, deadly fallout would be carried by prevailing winds across much of the nation, maiming and destroying wherever its pervasive cloud touched.

Inevitably so large a construction project would have an adverse impact on water resources, as well as sociological and ecological factors in the area. Water has always been woefully short in this part of the West. We might expect that in meeting this additional demand for water there could be serious long term consequences.

We are not adverse to consistent and stable population growth, but the influx of tens of thousands of temporary workers and their families, together with those involved in support services, would create grave sociological problems, particularly when coupled with an influx incident to the anticipated emphasis on energy development.

Published studies indicate that the fragile ecology of the area would likewise be adversely affected.

We may predict that with so many billions of dollars at stake we will hear much talk designed to minimize the problems that might be expected and to maximize the economic benefits that might accrue. The reasons for such portrayals will be obvious.

Our fathers came to this western area to establish a base from which to carry the gospel of peace to the peoples of the earth. It is ironic, and a denial of the very essence of that gospel, that in this same general area there should be constructed a mammoth weapons system potentially capable of destroying much of civilization.

With the most serious concern over the pressing moral question of possible nuclear conflict, we plead with our national leaders to marshal the genius of the nation to find viable alternatives which will secure at an earlier date and with fewer hazards the protection from possible enemy aggression, which is our common concern.

The Reagan Administration canceled the MX project.

Reflections on the entire episode were published in the Latter-day Saint academic journal BYU Studies in late 2022 by Paul A. Cox. BYU Studies' bio of him reads as follows:

Paul Alan Cox was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize, sometimes known as the Nobel Prize of the Environment, and was named one of TIME magazine’s eleven “Heroes of Medicine.” His conservation foundation, Seacology, has set aside over 1.5 million acres of rain forest and coral reef in sixty-six countries around the world. After serving as professor and dean at Brigham Young University, he became the first King Carl XVI Gustaf Professor of Environmental Science in Sweden. Currently, he serves as director of the Brain Chemistry Labs in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This article is based on a talk presented at BYU’s David M. Kennedy Center for International Studies on January 18, 2017.

We strongly encourage those interested in this episode, including those who wish to engage with criticisms of the Church, to read Dr. Cox's article. It is a testament to the Church's wisdom in opposing the MX, and to the duty we have as Latter-day Saints to de-escalate war efforts and protect our environment, with the stewardship over the earth that God has granted us.

BYU Studies, "The Orchid and the Missile: Reflections on the MX"

Paul A. Cox,  BYU Studies 61/2 (2022)

As Latter-day Saints, we are fortunate to have the Book of Mormon, which consists of writings of prophets from around 600 BC to AD 400 and of Christ’s teachings to inhabitants of the New World. The last of these New World prophets was named Moroni. As the lone faithful Nephite survivor of a genocidal war, Moroni spoke directly to us in our day, prophesying the conditions that would ultimately prevail: “Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be heard of fires, and tempests, and vapors of smoke in foreign lands; And there shall also be heard of wars, rumors of wars, and earthquakes in divers places. Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth” (Morm. 8:29–31). Our days and times are truly marked by wars, rumors of wars, vapors of smoke, and great pollutions. It is interesting that Moroni links smoke, fire, and pollution to warfare in these verses, because modern warfare has serious environmental consequences. Although climate change, rain forest destruction, species extinction, and degradation of clean air and clean water all represent formidable environmental challenges, these threats pale compared to the environmental consequences of modern warfare in its most vicious and destructive form—detonation of nuclear weapons.

Click here to view the complete article

What was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints's role in the passage of Proposition 8 in California?

The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. See Heritage.org and TraditionalValues.org for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

Further information

• Church Newsroom, Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction (Nov. 21, 2008)
• Church issues new Prop. 8 overview (Nov. 21, 2008)
• Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government, BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)
• LDS Newsroom, Church Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8 (May 26, 2009).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Laura Compton, "Edits to Boyd K. Packer's Talk," mormonsformarriage.com (blog post) (8 October 2010; 16h38)

---

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nov. 5, 2008

∗       ∗       ∗

The text of Proposition 8

The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

It reads in part:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

It also declares:

All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort

How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?

The California Supreme Court, in the case of In Re Marriage Cases, on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The Church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

How were members informed?

Initial letter to members

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Satellite broadcast

The Church followed up the letter with a satellite broadcast to members on October 8, 2008. During the broadcast, members were told:

"We invite you tonight to consider the following as your time and circumstances allow. For those with young families, substantial involvement may be out of the question, even though it may matter most to you. For others, however, we hope what we are inviting you to consider tonight will inspire you to respond with your time and your energy."

Among the suggestions made during the broadcast for member involvement was a request from Elder Russell M. Ballard for young people to make use of the latest communication technology to support Proposition 8:

“How do we go about that? You are critical in this effort because so many of you are connected. You are engaged in conversations through the use of technologies that were the dreams of science fiction in my day. As most of you know, we encourage members to join in the conversation. Many of you will text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods, and just talk to friends, associates and neighbors. These methods of engaging will be major elements of informing people of the issues and of the coalition’s position. As you do this, please do so in a sensitive manner. Our approach must always be with respect for others and their positions and opinions.”

Establishment of Call Centers

Among the plans mentioned by Church leaders during the satellite broadcast was the establishment of call centers. These call centers were set up in individual members' homes within the state of California. Members were to come with their mobile phones, work from coordinated lists, and then make calls. The first pass was to simply poll the people and ascertain where they stood on the issue, and if they were not familiar with it, introduce it to them. There were no "pitch" efforts involved, only education and polling.

Once the polling process was done, the day(s) before the actual election California members gathered together and went through the list of those polled and made calls to remind those considered "yes" or "probably yes" to get out and vote.

The day of the election member began calling in the morning and went to the actual polling locations to check the list of voters. Those who were on the previously compiled list of "yes" and "probably yes" who had not voted were called again. In some areas, callers asked voters who planned to vote "yes" if they knew where their polling place was and in some cases even asked them if they needed a ride to the polls.

These phone banks were not set up to "push" the passage of the proposition, but were instead designed only to be sure

that those who favored the proposition had every chance and reminder to get out and vote on the day of the election. At no time was there a pressure sale to the voters. When explaining the amendment, members were instructed to state that the proposition was for a constitutional amendment that added the following 14 words to the California constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". If someone asked what that meant, the caller explained that it meant marriage as it has been traditionally defined would be the only form of union recognized as marriage in California, meaning that marriage was only between individuals of the opposite sex.

Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?

Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter and the satellite broadcast, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is their choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

• Monetary donations
• Going door-to-door to poll voters
• Phoning voters to remind them to vote
• Sign-waving on street corners
• Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

The "No on 8" response

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

—"Same-Sex Setback," Rolling Stone (Dec. 11, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5) The Church did not oppose such matters, writing:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

Rather than acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the issue, Proposition 8 was portrayed by its opponents as removing marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in Latter-day Saint Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

Attempts to Identify and "Dig Up Dirt" on Latter-day Saint Donors Before the Election

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.

—Editorial, Legislating Immorality, National Review Online (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

• Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the Latter-day Saint donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is not recorded by the state. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" Hansen gave a speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

• Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the Latter-day Saint donors. Atkins' blog in the Daily Kos linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on Latter-day Saint donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious."

The infamous "Mormon Missionary Home Invasion" Commercial

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

—Jonah Goldberg, An ugly attack on Mormons, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 2, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8 (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies

The Ads

The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by Latter-day Saint lawyer Morris Thurston. This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even Latter-day Saints realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another Latter-day Saint attorney, Blake Ostler. Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release)

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about—Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.

—Isobel White, Prop. 8 and our schools—time to tell it like it is., Huffington Post, (Dec. 12, 2008)

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened
• Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods

Claims by the "No on 8" campaign

The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign:

• "Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
• Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign

The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

• A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims."

• A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card.

Where did the money come from?

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

	In-State Donations	Out-of-State Donations	Total Donations
For Proposition 8	$25,388,955	$10,733,582	$36,122,538
Against Proposition 8	$26,464,589	$11,968,285	$38,432,873
Totals	$51,853,544	$22,701,867	$74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of Latter-day-Saint-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of Church's involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a former member of the Church, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to the Church's involvement, as an effort to "level the financial playing field."

The Vote

Latter-day Saints, while instrumental in helping pass Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the 52% to 48% margin (7,001,084 to 6,401,482) by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of Latter-day Saint voters was simply too small to account for that margin. Encouragement from Latter-day Saint volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that Latter-day Saint involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

Latter-day Saints may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbors still have to actually cast their votes. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that Latter-day Saint volunteers worked closely with non-Latter-day-Saint volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

Voting Demographics

• Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 Latter-day Saints out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
• Not all Latter-day Saints voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
• LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
• The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition. Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
• The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
• The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

Post-election questions and myths

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

• Questions
  • Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?
  • Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • But what about the companies that the Church owns?
  • Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?
  • Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?
  • Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?
  • Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?
  • How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?
• Myths
  • Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8
  • Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian
  • The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers
  • The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign
  • The Church was later found guilty of 'election fraud' and fined as a result

Post-election events

In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.

—Hendrik Hertzberg, (Proposition) Eight is enough, The New Yorker (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

—Editorial, Legislating Immorality, National Review Online (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.

—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple

∗       ∗       ∗

Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormons need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?

—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.

∗       ∗       ∗

There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

• Threats from "No on 8" supporters
• Church response
• Negative reactions
  • Accusations of hatred and bigotry
  • Protests at Latter-day Saint places of worship
  • Protests at other Christian places of worship
  • Vandalism of Latter-day Saint Chapels by "No on 8" supporters
  • Harassment
  • Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?
  • Terrorist tactics
  • Hacking of Church related web site
  • Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status
  • Blacklists and boycotts
  • Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS
  • Intimidation of gays and lesbians
  • Absence of support from political leaders
• Positive effects
  • Expressions of support from other Christians
  • Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8

Videos

Yes on 8 ads

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened

No on 8 ads

• advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8
• Parents
• Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8
• Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools, Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
• California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8
• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8

Press conferences

• Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

External links

Proposition 8 related

• Paul Bishop, In the Face of Hatred, Meridian Magazine, November 12, 2008.

Church involvement in politics

• Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (November 1999): 52.off-site
• Hugh Nibley, "Beyond Politics," BYU Studies 15 no. 1 (1974), 1–21.

Warning: Due to the nature of the subject, some external links may lead to sites which contain explicit language

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top